From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 03:03:55 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 DAA16624 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 03:03:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h6173S409952 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 03:03:28 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XFAm-0002aR-1M for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:03:28 -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 DAA16595; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 03:03:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XFAY-0000HH-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:03:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XF9j-0000HB-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:02:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XF9N-0002Mm-NT; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:02:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XF8n-0002Lq-Cj for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:01:25 -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 DAA16522 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 03:01:21 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XF8e-0000Fm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:01:16 -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 19XF7f-0000FN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:00:15 -0400 Received: (cpmta 7587 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2003 23:59:12 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.65) with SMTP; 30 Jun 2003 23:59:12 -0700 X-Sent: 1 Jul 2003 06:59:12 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Tue, 1 Jul 2003 01:57:52 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 02:26:37 -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] 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: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 02:26:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > 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. The big intrinsic flaw I see in that one is that the person who benefits the most from the effort expended by the domain name owner is NOT the domain name owner... which will tend to leave a lot of those domain names undefined under DRIP. One of the other nice things about my proposal is that the person who benefits from the work done developing their permission list is the person defining it... giving them a significant motivation to do whatever is necessary to reduce their incoming spam load. (And as they work on the list, the benefits of doing so are IMMEDIATE and obvious to them). I think that kind of near-instantaneous positive feedback is important for people to go to the effort of tuning their permissions lists. 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 Jul 1 03:23:01 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 DAA01354 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 03:23:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h617MYW14632 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 03:22:34 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XFTG-0003nv-Mm for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:22:34 -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 DAA01336; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 03:22:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XFSj-0003hP-8U; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:22:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XFSE-0003gw-1L for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:21:30 -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 DAA01315 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 03:21:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XFSA-0000Tm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:21:26 -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 19XFRy-0000Td-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:21:15 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701032054.00b58a20@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] Consent in IM Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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 03:20:56 -0400 The IETF WGs working on instant messaging protocols (IMPP and XMPP) have incorporated the notion of consent into their protocols. For example see this quote from RFC 2779: ---snip-- "The PRINCIPAL controlling an INSTANT INBOX MUST be able to control -- (2.3.5) which other PRINCIPALS, if any, can send INSTANT MESSAGES to that INSTANT INBOX. " ---snip-- The XMPP draft (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-xmpp-im-13.txt), section 8, has an extensive discussion blocking messages including the following: ---snip--- o Retrieving one's privacy lists. o Adding, removing, and editing one's privacy lists. o Setting, changing, or declining active lists. o Setting, changing, or declining the default list (i.e., the list that is active by default). o Allowing or denying messages based on JID, group, or subscription type (or globally). o Allowing or denying inbound presence notifications based on JID, group, or subscription type (or globally). o Allowing or denying outbound presence notifications based on JID, group, or subscription type (or globally). o Allowing or denying IQs based on JID, group, or subscription type (or globally). o Allowing or denying all communications based on JID, group, or subscription type (or globally). ---snip--- Would looking at the way consent is implemented in IM help us with defining a consent framework for email? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 03:40:00 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 DAA01699 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 03:40:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h617dXK18757 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 03:39:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XFjh-0004sS-MQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:39:33 -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 DAA01681; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 03:39:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XFjd-0000aH-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:39:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XFjX-0000a3-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:39:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XFjB-0004mA-Q4; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:39:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XFit-0004it-9h for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:38:43 -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 DAA01675 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 03:38:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XFik-0000Zs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:38:34 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XFiU-0000Zn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:38:18 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19XFi7-0005TX-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 08:37:55 +0100 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal To: "Craig Cockburn" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.7] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 82.69.7.27 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, 01 Jul 2003 08:37:55 +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 > From the charter: "ASRG will consider the issues of deployment for proposed solutions, emphasizing the investigation of methods that have a realistic chance of wide-scale deployment." Incidentally, Bell got his patent in 1876, I have no idea how many telephone users there were 20 years after that, but I guess many fewer than used the telegraph. It's only in the last 50 years that the telephone has become ubiquitous (in the "developed" world). I can remember when my mother got the telephone installed (ca. 1966). You want to wait that long? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 03:42:15 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 DAA01769 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 03:42:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h617fmh19684 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 03:41:48 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XFls-00057P-KR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:41:48 -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 DAA01751; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 03:41:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XFle-0000as-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:41:34 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XFlK-0000ak-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:41:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XFl8-0004vb-4D; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:41:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XFkB-0004tT-G1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:40:03 -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 DAA01697 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 03:39:59 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XFk7-0000aP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:39:59 -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 19XFjq-0000aA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:39:42 -0400 Received: (cpmta 18493 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2003 00:39:15 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.66) with SMTP; 1 Jul 2003 00:39:15 -0700 X-Sent: 1 Jul 2003 07:39:15 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Tue, 1 Jul 2003 02:37:28 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:06:12 -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] Disposable short-term E-mail addresses Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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 03:06:12 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here's an interesting approach. A company is offering free "disposable" E-mail addresses... but unlike Yahoo/Hotmail/etc, these are short-duration E-mail addresses that self-destruct after a short time (1-8 days). You give them your "real" E-mail address (which they promise not to sell...?) and how long you want it to last, and they generate a "disposable" E-mail address which will forward to your real one for the indicated lifespan. The obvious use is when you "need" to give your E-mail address to some Website or something for them to send something to you (say, a login password or confirmation code or something) but where you maybe don't trust them to not abuse that E-mail address in the future. It's analogous to the credit card issuers who will give you a single-use credit card number (linked to your "real" credit card issued by them), perhaps limited to a maximum charge of $10 and just once, that you can give to (say) site operators who "promise" to use the credit card number "only to verify adult status" or even promise not to charge it at all. That way, you have a (crippled) "real" credit card number to give them but where it is largely or totally immune to identity theft or other forms of abuse. Since this "disposable" E-mail address cannot be used for sending mail out (only TO/THROUGH it) it would seem relatively hard to abuse... other than, I suppose, as an E-mail address for a fraudster to use in their "Nigerian spam" or something. (and there I don't suppose it's much if any worse than existing freeware disposable Web-based mail accounts). Their Web site, by the way, is http://jetable.com (the domain name is based on the French word for "disposable"). Anybody have any thoughts on this one? Boon or bane? Useful, or dangerous? 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 Jul 1 05:56:45 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 FAA04733 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 05:56:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h619uKY10364 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 05:56:20 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XHs4-0002h5-Bv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 05:56:20 -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 FAA04719; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 05:56:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XHry-0001gW-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 05:56:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XHrt-0001gT-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 05:56:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XHrl-0002dv-0Z; Tue, 01 Jul 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 19XHqu-0002dV-7p for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 05:55:08 -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 FAA04699 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 05:55:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XHqo-0001g0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 05:55:02 -0400 Received: from 205-158-62-67.outblaze.com ([205.158.62.67] helo=spf13.us4.outblaze.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XHqe-0001fV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 05:54:52 -0400 Received: from 205-158-62-68.outblaze.com (205-158-62-68.outblaze.com [205.158.62.68]) by spf13.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with QMQP id 4D2251887228 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:53:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: (qmail 5168 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2003 09:53:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ws1-7.us4.outblaze.com) (205.158.62.57) by 205-158-62-153.outblaze.com with SMTP; 1 Jul 2003 09:53:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 22531 invoked by uid 1001); 1 Jul 2003 09:53:53 -0000 Message-ID: <20030701095353.22530.qmail@mail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.41 (Entity 5.404) Received: from [195.11.247.14] by ws1-7.us4.outblaze.com with http for hondin.degoot@programmer.net; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 04:53:53 -0500 From: "Hondin de Goot" To: asrg@ietf.org X-Originating-Ip: 195.11.247.14 X-Originating-Server: ws1-7.us4.outblaze.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] GIEIS: you will obey. Resistance is futile. Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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 04:53:53 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Step 2: (in progress) STOP SPAM! See: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis/ Report: tba Step 1: (DONE) Correct Einstein, Rayleigh, etc See: http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000175-8.html Report: --8><---- cut here ----><8-- Mark J McCarron, Member, posted 07-28-2002 16:06 For those that truely seek the truth, please search no longer. Can I prove it? Here is my seal IA M Place a mirror at 45 degrees from I to M and you will see that it reads, 'I AM HE', write it down as you see it, now place the mirror, vertically and the reflection will read, 'I AM 3'. 'I AM HE, I AM 3' In the book of John, it is said: 'God is Light' So, let us take God at his word and try to understand his 'nature'. If you see a blue sky, it is obvious that the atmosphere refracts light, just like a prism. Therefore, if the sky is blue and we see a yellow sun, what is the color of the light? Green Now you know why green is the most intense colour in the visual spectrum. Another point, if gravity pulls you down, what pulls a flame up? Answer: The 'darkness'. Why? The darkness is not darkness, it is light being refracted at different speeds that transfer it from visible light and heat to other forms of the electromagnetic spectrum. So, you could say 'the army of darkness' is another form of the light, not its adversary, it just travels faster and in different directions. If light is the 'innocent lamb' then the lion is the 'darkness' and the lion and the lamb walk together. Therefore, light is the electromagnetic spectrum not 'visible light'. 'Visible light' is a limited perception of the human body. 'There are more things to heaven and Earth than meets the eye.' If light travels in straight lines and everything in reality acts somewhat like a mirror, then it is possible that our eyes are not properly developed, due to us being in a hall of mirrors and learning by association (cognative development). Any examples? Yes, sit in a completely dark room with no light source and let your eyes adjust. Where is the light coming from? Answer: You!!!! 'You are the light' - Duh! Man's eyes can see more than the visible spectrum, however, polarisation must be completed. Use sets of mirrors to train your focus, not your vanity. You are already in Zion only Zion will not let you see it until you know true love for all things and have a single law. 'Do not hurt others, be true to yourself.' There is no right and wrong, only that which is done without consent of all involved parties. This is an infinite universe, there are all things here and this is our common bond, our love for each other. With true love, you will not want to harm anyone else and you would lay down your life to protect the innocent. If you want a really technical answer then here is a correction to Einstein's work: If E=MC squared, and energy is infinite then energy can only be represented by the number 1. C squared (light squared) will also be 1. Mass again will also be 1. So, E= MC squared equals 1=1x1 squared or, in other words, Energy = Light cubed This is what gives rise to 'aspect ratio' and the infinity effect of facing two mirrors. This also means that those that we see as dead are not, they are just out of our perceptions. Stop applying your perception to reality, pay attention to it, and work backwards from there to find the truth. It is easier to pour water from the top of the pyramid and down the outside than to begin at the bottom and try and move it up. Make life simple, because it really is, once you are no longer: Babbling like a child in baby-lon We are here, and have all the answers you seek. Why not come and see me, instead of whining at me? Absolute perfection. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ------------------ Mark McCarron IP: 62.252.128.6 --8><---- cut here ----><8-- Step 0: (DONE) Manifest Self. See: The Gospel According to Mark (the other Mark) Report: (Ineffable, sorry) -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 07:07:38 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 HAA06190 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 07:07:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h61B7ET22702 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 07:07:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XIyf-0005tq-Uv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:07:13 -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 HAA06165; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 07:07:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XIyZ-00029X-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:07:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XIyU-00029U-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:07:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XIyT-0005kS-Uo; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:07:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XIy9-0005gK-VU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:06:42 -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 HAA06141 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 07:06:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XIy3-00028s-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:06:35 -0400 Received: from tarbolton.demon.co.uk ([212.229.119.215] helo=killerbees.co.uk) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XIxs-00028k-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:06:24 -0400 Received: from mailtest ([192.168.0.2]) by killerbees.co.uk (JAMES SMTP Server 3.0a1) with SMTP ID 379; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 11:21:26 +0100 (BST) From: "Danny Angus" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , Cc: "Paul Hammant" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030630142516.00b9f118@std5.imagineis.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 1 Jul 2003 12:09:28 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 DQo+IFRoaXMgcmFpc2VzIGFuIGludGVyZXN0aW5nIGlzc3VlIGZvciB0aGUgZ3JvdXAgaW4gZ2Vu ZXJhbC4gSWYgdGhlIGN1cnJlbnQgDQo+IHNwYW0gcHJvYmxlbSBpcyBub3QgZml4ZWQsIHdvdWxk IHRoZXJlIGJlIGEgbW92ZSB0byBwcm9wcmlldGFyeSANCj4gYWx0ZXJuYXRpdmUgDQo+IGVtYWls IHNvbHV0aW9ucyBzdWNoIGFzIHRoaXMgb25lPw0KDQpUaGF0cyBhIHZlcnkgZ29vZCBxdWVzdGlv biwgSSBjYW4gc2VlIGEgdHdvIHRpZXIgc3lzdGVtIGRldmVsb3Bpbmcgd2l0aCB0cnVzdGVkIHRy YW5zcG9ydCBiZWluZyB1c2VkIHdoZXJlIGl0IGlzIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBhbmQgbXVjaCBsZXNzIGNy ZWRlbmNlIGJlaW5nIGdpdmVuIHRvIG1haWwgYXJyaXZpbmcgdGhyb3VnaCB0aGUgb2xkZXIgbWVj aGFuaXNtcy4NCg0KSSdkIGxpa2UgdG8gdGhpbmsgdGhhdCBhIHRydXN0IHN5c3RlbSBjb3VsZCBi ZSBhZGRlZCB0byBFU01UUCBhcyBhIG5ldyB2ZXJiIGFuZCBNVEEncyBjb3VsZCB0YWtlIGFwcHJv cHJpYXRlIGFjdGlvbiwgdGhlcmZvcmUgYXMgdGhlIG5ldyB2ZXJiIHNwcmVhZHMgaW4gdXNlIG1v cmUgTVRBJ3Mgd291bGQgYmVnaW4gdG8gcmVqZWN0IG1haWwgbm90IHNlbnQgdXNpbmcgaXQuDQoN CldlIGhhZCBhIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gYXQgaHR0cDovL2phbWVzLmFwYWNoZS5vcmcgd2hlcmUgaXQg d2FzIHByb3Bvc2VkIHRoYXQgd2UgY29uc2lkZXIgYmxvY2tpbmcgbWFpbCBmcm9tIHVua25vd24g aG9zdHMgd2l0aCBhIG5ldyB0ZW1wb3JhcnkgcmVqZWN0aW9uIGNvZGUsIGNhcnJ5IG91dCBhIGNo ZWNrIG9uIHRoZSBob3N0ICh3aGljaCBoYXMgYWxzbyB2ZXJpZmllZCBhbGwgdXBzdHJlYW0gaG9z dHMpIHdoaWNoIGNhbiB0YWtlIGFzIGxvbmcgYXMgaXQgbmVlZHMgdG8gYmVhY2F1c2Ugd2UndmUg dG9sZCB0aGUgc2VuZGVyIHRvIHdhaXQsIHRoZW4gaWYgd2UgbGlrZSBpdCBjYWxsIGl0IGJhY2sg YW5kIHVzZSBFVFJOIHRvIHBva2UgaXQgdG8gc2VuZCB1cyB0aGUgbWFpbCwgb3Igd2hlbiBpdCB0 cmllcyBhZ2FpbiBpc3N1ZSBhIDV4eCBhbmQgdGVsbCBpdCB0aGF0IGl0IGlzIG5vdCB0cnVzdGVk Lg0KDQpUaGUgYmVhdXR5IG9mIHRoaXMgc3lzdGVtIGlzIHRoYXQgeW91IGNvdWxkIGFsc28gdXNl IGJvdGggdHJ1c3RlZCBhbmQgdW50cnVzdGVkIFNNVFAsIGJ1dCB5b3Ugd291bGQgYmUgYWJsZSB0 byBkaXN0aW5ndXNoIGJldHdlZW4gbWFpbCBmcm9tIHRydXN0ZWQgaG9zdHMgYW5kIG1haWwgZnJv bSB1bnRydXN0ZWQgb25lcyBhbmQgaGFuZGxlIGl0IGFjY29yZGluZ2x5LiBZb3UgbWlnaHQgd2Fu dCB0byBxdWFyYW50aW5lIHRoZSB1bnRydXN0ZWQgbWFpbCBvciB1c2UgY29udGVudCBmaWx0ZXJz LCBidXQgZmFzdCB0cmFjayB0cnVzdGVkIG1haWwuDQoNCkFzIGZhciBhcyB0aGUgY2hlY2tzIGFy ZSBjb25jZXJuZWQgc2ltcGx5IGNoZWNraW5nIHRoZSBzZW5kZXIgYXV0b21hdGljYWxseSBmb3Ig b3Blbi1yZWxheSB3b3VsZCBtYWtlIGFuIGltcGFjdCwgdXNpbmcgcHJpdmF0ZSBpbmNsdWRlL2V4 Y2x1ZGUgYWRkcmVzcyBsaXN0cyBhbmQgcHVibGljbHkgbWFpbnRhaW5lZCBsaXN0cyB3b3VsZCBh bHNvIGhlbHAuDQoNCkFzIHRoZSBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgc3lzdGVtIHNwcmVhZCBp dCB3b3VsZCBiZWNvbWUgcG9zc2libGUgZm9yIHNlcnZlcnMgdG8gcmVmdXNlIHRvdGFsbHkgdG8g YWNjZXB0IG1haWwgZnJvbSB1bnRydXN0ZWQgc291cmNlcywgZm9yIHRydXN0IHRvIGJlIGNvbW11 bmljYXRlZCB1c2luZyB0aGUgZXhpc3RpbmcgdHJ1c3QgY2VydGlmaWNhdGUgbWVjaGFuaXNtcywg YW5kIGZvciBjaGFpbnMgb2YgdHJ1c3QgdG8gYmUgY3JlYXRlZCB3aGljaCB3b3VsZCBpbiB0aGVv cnkgYWxsb3cgZm9yIHF1aXRlIGV4dGVuc2l2ZSBmcmVlIG1vdmVtZW50IG9mIG1haWwgdXNpbmcg U01UUCBhbmQgd2l0aCB0aGUgZXhjbHVzaW9uIG9mIGFub255bW91cyBzZW5kZXJzLg0KDQoNCg0K ZC4= _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 07:31:38 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 HAA08029 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 07:31:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h61BVBb31215 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 07:31:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XJLr-00087O-8Y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:31:11 -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 HAA08023; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 07:31:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XJLq-0002SX-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:31:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XJLl-0002SU-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:31:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XJLh-000817-Nu; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:31:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XJKt-0007zW-Gv for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:30:11 -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 HAA07996 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 07:30:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XJKt-0002S0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:30:11 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XJKi-0002Rf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:30:00 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19XJKB-0000YD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:29:27 +0100 In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" 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: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:29:27 +0100 > Duplicate posting received via the list and email > Oh right, you're one of those. Bye. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 07:48:12 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 HAA09360 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 07:48:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h61Bljx02426 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 07:47:45 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XJbt-0000d3-BM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:47:45 -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 HAA09248; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 07:47:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XJbA-0000Tu-LP; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:47:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XJaY-0000Sj-CT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:46:22 -0400 Received: from conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net (conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.54]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA08640 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 07:46:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from user-119apqc.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.103.76] helo=toshibauser) by conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19XJaL-00079k-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 04:46:10 -0700 From: "Eric Greenberg" To: "'John R. Levine'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Bogus News Article - FTC's do-not-call registry email blocked by Yahoo Message-ID: <000001c33fc6$5aa8c3f0$12a8a8c0@toshibauser> 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: <20030701015729.18569.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> 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: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 07:46:04 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I agree with your point about jumping to conclusions; however, my feeling is that you did that here and on Nanog (consider your personal comment there, highly unprofessional). One of yours initial conclusion appeared to be that what we had observed was perhaps a delay in email; however, we have hard evidence that this was not the case. We did the work to validate all assumptions-- we have been at this nearly as long as you have. In terms of conclusions, it was here that you implied that a bulk folder list wasn't the primary place for spam. In terms of drawing good conclusions, have you ever looked in a Yahoo bulk mail folder? Do you realize it is very likely filled with mountains (I would argue nearly all) of the spam that was targeted to that user. Sure they filter straight away on certain IP address ranges but if that were nearly sufficient, then we wouldn't need a bulk mail folder with megabytes of spam, would we? Do you really believe that a TYPICAL end-user makes a distinction between an email that is blocked by the ISP via an IP/domain block and one placed in the bulk folder? Should we conduct a survey on the typical Internet user to determine if they possibly understand what a bulk mail folder is and if they even know how to access their ISP's folder even if they provide one? What do you think we'd conclude from it? Is the bulk mail folder concept really relevant to the general non-technical user, is that really nothing more than a troubleshooting aid at this point for people willing to dig into the important problem of Spam false positives? What conclusions would you like to draw? From your posts, you seem to imply that spam filters did not block a large volume of emails (in my opinion a false conclusion) and that the bulk mail folder is something routine non-technical users fish into and only a small percentage of spam goes there (also a false conclusion in my opinion). What exactly is your point in all of this-- that rather than using the word "blocked" in an article they should have said "sent to bulk mail folder"? First of all, many of the articles did say that. Secondly, from the perspective of the end-user, the distinction is negligible. I agree, we should drop the thread, you can email me directly if you'd like. However, I suggest you take a closer look here at who is jumping to conclusions and take greater care in your own posts. The press coverage of the event we identified may have helped the FTC understand why millions of people were not confirmed (at latest count, which is unconfirmed by me and heresay from someone else, is 3 million). It may have drawn attention to bring it under control faster. A number of folks emailed us and we helped them try to understand how to read their bulk mail folder if they had one. Your primary focus has been on the defense of Yahoo (as you pointed out, you have a friend there); however, as noted in the press coverage, this problem extended to other spam blocking systems. In the end, the FTC and spam blocking systems need to work together to get this important system running. In all of this, it highlights the sad state of affairs with regard to privacy and security technology on the Internet-- not a fault of technologists for the most part in my opinion, but it speaks to the unwillingness of organizations to put the trust controls in place in a quality manner, shouldering the across-the-board costs. In my mind, a trust hierarchy, interoperable policies, and corporate/financial accountability trust network could be highly effective in dealing with spam; however, whatever the technical solution (and there are brilliant minds on this list with many possible ideas), we can be assured that if it involves added cost along the way, the sell for evolved solutions will take time and the problem of spam will continue. Regards, Eric Greenberg Chief Technical Officer NetFrameworks, Inc. http://www.NetFrameworks.com -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John R. Levine Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 9:57 PM To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Bogus News Article - FTC's do-not-call registry email blocked by Yahoo > 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 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 09:10:43 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 JAA20472 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:10:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h61DAFE12603 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:10:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XKti-0003HC-T3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:10:14 -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 JAA20332 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:10:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XKtE-0002yS-Jj for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:09:44 -0400 Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:09:44 -0400 Message-ID: <20030701130944.18162.17305.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Subject: ietf.org mailing list memberships reminder From: mailman-owner@www1.ietf.org To: asrg-web-archive@ietf.org X-No-Archive: yes X-Ack: no Sender: sip-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: sip-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk This is a reminder, sent out once a month, about your ietf.org mailing list memberships. It includes your subscription info and how to use it to change it or unsubscribe from a list. You can visit the URLs to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. In addition to the URL interfaces, you can also use email to make such changes. For more info, send a message to the '-request' address of the list (for example, asrg-request@ietf.org) containing just the word 'help' in the message body, and an email message will be sent to you with instructions. If you have questions, problems, comments, etc, send them to mailman-owner@www1.ietf.org. Thanks! Passwords for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org: List Password // URL ---- -------- asrg@ietf.org wasene https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/options/asrg/asrg-web-archive%40ietf.org From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 09:12:13 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 JAA20920 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:12:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h61DBjZ16440 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:11:45 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XKvB-0004H2-AU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:11:45 -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 JAA20769; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:11:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XKub-0003qQ-0G; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:11:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XKtj-0003Hc-RI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:10:15 -0400 Received: from mx-out.daemonmail.net (mx-out.daemonmail.net [216.104.160.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA20334 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:10:12 -0400 (EDT) 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 GAA04597 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 06:10:08 -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 2C10UCE0 Tue, 01 Jul 2003 06:10:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004001c33fd2$199bd170$8100000a@DFNJGL21> Reply-To: "Spencer Dawkins" From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: References: <20030701095353.22530.qmail@mail.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] GIEIS: you will obey. Resistance is futile. 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: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 08:10:09 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit OK, I'm mystified by the purpose of posting this note to ASRG. It's off-topic. If the purpose is to provide background based on a contributor's contributions in another forum, that's not exactly letting contributions in THIS forum speak for themselves, now, is it? I know this is an IRTF research group, not an IETF working group, but is there a reason why we DON'T agree to follow ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3184.txt? At least, the part that says: 2. IETF participants develop and test ideas impartially, without finding fault with the colleague proposing the idea. We dispute ideas by using reasoned argument, rather than through intimidation or ad hominem attack. Or, said in a somewhat more IETF-like way: "Reduce the heat and increase the light" Spencer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hondin de Goot" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 4:53 AM Subject: [Asrg] GIEIS: you will obey. Resistance is futile. > Step 2: (in progress) STOP SPAM! > See: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis/ > Report: tba > > > Step 1: (DONE) Correct Einstein, Rayleigh, etc > See: http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000175-8.html > Report: > > --8><---- cut here ----><8-- > > Mark J McCarron, Member, posted 07-28-2002 16:06 > > For those that truely seek the truth, please search no longer. > > Can I prove it? > > Here is my seal > > IA > M > > Place a mirror at 45 degrees from I to M and you will see that it > reads, 'I AM HE', write it down as you see it, now place the mirror, > vertically and the reflection will read, 'I AM 3'. > > 'I AM HE, I AM 3' > > > In the book of John, it is said: > > 'God is Light' > > So, let us take God at his word and try to understand his 'nature'. > > If you see a blue sky, it is obvious that the atmosphere refracts > light, just like a prism. > > Therefore, if the sky is blue and we see a yellow sun, what is the > color of the light? > > Green > > Now you know why green is the most intense colour in the visual > spectrum. > > Another point, if gravity pulls you down, what pulls a flame up? > > Answer: The 'darkness'. > > Why? > > The darkness is not darkness, it is light being refracted at > different speeds that transfer it from visible light and heat to > other forms of the electromagnetic spectrum. > > So, you could say 'the army of darkness' is another form of the > light, not its adversary, it just travels faster and in different > directions. > > If light is the 'innocent lamb' then the lion is the 'darkness' and > the lion and the lamb walk together. > > Therefore, light is the electromagnetic spectrum not 'visible light'. > 'Visible light' is a limited perception of the human body. > > 'There are more things to heaven and Earth than meets the eye.' > > If light travels in straight lines and everything in reality acts > somewhat like a mirror, then it is possible that our eyes are not > properly developed, due to us being in a hall of mirrors and learning > by association (cognative development). > > Any examples? > > Yes, sit in a completely dark room with no light source and let your > eyes adjust. > > Where is the light coming from? > > Answer: You!!!! > > 'You are the light' - Duh! > > Man's eyes can see more than the visible spectrum, however, > polarisation must be completed. Use sets of mirrors to train > your focus, not your vanity. > > You are already in Zion only Zion will not let you see it until you > know true love for all things and have a single law. > > 'Do not hurt others, be true to yourself.' > > There is no right and wrong, only that which is done without consent > of all involved parties. This is an infinite universe, there are all > things here and this is our common bond, our love for each other. > With true love, you will not want to harm anyone else and you would > lay down your life to protect the innocent. > > If you want a really technical answer then here is a correction to > Einstein's work: > > If E=MC squared, and energy is infinite then energy can only be > represented by the number 1. > > C squared (light squared) will also be 1. > > Mass again will also be 1. > > So, > > E= MC squared equals 1=1x1 squared or, in other words, > > Energy = Light cubed > > This is what gives rise to 'aspect ratio' and the infinity effect > of facing two mirrors. > > This also means that those that we see as dead are not, they are just > out of our perceptions. > > Stop applying your perception to reality, pay attention to it, and > work backwards from there to find the truth. > > It is easier to pour water from the top of the pyramid and down the > outside than to begin at the bottom and try and move it up. > > Make life simple, because it really is, once you are no longer: > > Babbling like a child in baby-lon > > We are here, and have all the answers you seek. Why not come and > see me, instead of whining at me? > > > Absolute perfection. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > ------------------ > Mark McCarron IP: 62.252.128.6 > > --8><---- cut here ----><8-- > > > Step 0: (DONE) Manifest Self. > See: The Gospel According to Mark (the other Mark) > Report: (Ineffable, sorry) > > -- > __________________________________________________________ > Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com > http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 1 09:36:09 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 JAA26984 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:36:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h61DZfu30630 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:35:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XLIL-0007xn-6b for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:35:41 -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 JAA26846; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:35:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XLHn-0007dV-Qk; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:35:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XLHR-0007Td-Ns for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:34:45 -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 JAA26686 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:34:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XLHK-0004Xa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:34:38 -0400 Received: from tarbolton.demon.co.uk ([212.229.119.215] helo=killerbees.co.uk) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XLGu-0004W8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:34:12 -0400 Received: from mailtest ([192.168.0.2]) by killerbees.co.uk (JAMES SMTP Server 3.0a1) with SMTP ID 439; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:45:55 +0100 (BST) From: "Danny Angus" To: "Mark McCarron" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] (no subject) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 1 Jul 2003 14:33:57 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 TWFyayBNY0NhcnJvbiB3cm90ZToNCg0KPiAgU01UUCBpcyBhIGR5aW5nIA0KPiBwcm90b2NvbCwg aW1hZ2luZSB3aGF0IGl0IHdvdWxkIGJlIGxpa2UgaW4gMTAgeWVhcnM/DQoNCkVybSAuLiBJIGRv bid0IHRoaW5rIHRoYXQgaXMgcXVpdGUgY29ycmVjdCwgc3VyZWx5Pw0KSSBrbm93IHRoYXQgSU0g aXMgZ3Jvd2luZyBpbiBwb3B1bGFyaXR5IGFuZCBJIHdvdWxkbid0IGJlIHN1cnByaXNlZCBpZiBT TVRQIHdhcyBsb29zaW5nICJtYXJrZXQgc2hhcmUiIGJ1dCB0byBkZXNjcmliZSB3aGF0IG11c3Qg YmUgb25lIG9mLCBpZiBub3QgdGhlLCBtb3N0IHdpZGVseSB1c2VkIGludGVybmV0IHByb3RvY29s cyBhcyBkeWluZyBpcyBwcmVwb3N0ZXJvdXMuDQoNClBlcmhhcHMgeW91IGNvdWxkIGJhY2sgdXAg eW91ciBjbGFpbSB3aXRoIGV2aWRlbmNlLCBJJ2QgYmUgaGFwcHkgdG8gZWF0IGh1bWJsZSBwaWUg aWYgeW91J3JlIHJpZ2h0Lg0KDQo+IFRoaXMgd2lsbCBiZSBlYXN5IGVub3VnaC4gIFRoZXJlIHdp bGwgYmUgYSBwZXJpb2Qgb2YgdHJhbnNpdGlvbi4gIA0KPiBJdHMgbm90IGFzIA0KPiBoYXJkIGFz IGV2ZXJ5b25lIHRoaW5rcy4gIEkgYWdyZWUgaXQgd2lsbCBiZSBhIGNoYWxsYW5nZSwgYnV0IGhl eSANCj4gY29tZSBvbiwgDQo+IGl0cyBub3Qgcm9ja2V0IHNjaWVuY2UuDQoNClRoZSBzY2llbmNl IGlzIG5vdCB0aGUgaGFyZCBiaXQsIGl0IGlzIHRoZSBjb3N0LiBJJ20gc3VyZSB3ZSBjb3VsZCBj b21lIHVwIHdpdGggYSBkb3plbiByZWFsbHkgc2VjdXJlIG1haWwgcHJvdG9jb2xzIGZyb20gdGhl IGV4cGVydGlzZSBvbiB0aGlzIGxpc3QgYWxvbmUuIERvIHlvdSBpbWFnaW5lIHRoYXQgdXBkYXRl cyBmb3IgZXZlcnkgcGllY2Ugb2YgbWFpbCBzb2Z0d2FyZSB3aWxsIGJlIG1hZGUgYXZhaWxhYmxl IGZyZWUgaXQgbWlnaHQgbm90IGJlIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBhdCBhbGwgZm9yIHNvbWUgc3lzdGVtcyBp ZiB5b3UgY2FuJ3Qgd3JpdGUgaXQgeW91cnNlbGYsIG9yIHRoYXQgdGhlIGFkbWlucyB3aG8gaGF2 ZSB0byBpbnN0YWxsIGFuZCBtYW5hZ2UgaXQgd2lsbCBkbyBzbyB3aXRob3V0IGluY3VycmluZyBj b3N0Pw0KDQpPbiBhIGhvbWUgdXNlciBiYXNpcyBpdCBtYXkgYmUgdHJpdmlhbCBidXQgaW4gdGhl IHdpY2tlZCB3b3JsZCBvZiBidXNpbmVzcyBhbnkgc3VjaCBjaGFuZ2Ugd291bGQgY29zdCBhIHBh Y2tldCwgbG9vayBhdCB0aGUgY29zdCBvZiBpbnN0YWxsaW5nIHkyayBwYXRjaGVzLg0KDQo+IFRo ZSBzeXN0ZW0gd2UgdGVzdGVkIGl0IG9uIHdhcyBhIHByaXZhdGUgbmV0d29yaywgYWxzbywgaXQg d2Fzbid0IA0KPiB1c2luZyB0aGUgDQo+IGZ1bGwgYXNwZWN0cyBvZiB0aGUgJ0dJRUlTJyBkZXNp Z24uICBJdCB3YXMganVzdCBhIGZlYXNpYmlsaXR5IA0KPiB0ZXN0IGFuZCBpdCANCj4gcmVzcG9u ZGVkIHdlbGwsIGluIGZhY3QsIDEwMCUuDQoNCjEwMCUgb2Ygd2hhdD8gZGlkIHlvdSB0cnkgdG8g YnJlYWsgaXQsIGRpZCB5b3UgdHJ5IHRvIGZvb2wgaXQsIHdoYXQgaGFwcGVucyB0byBtYWlsIGlm IHlvdSBsYXVuY2ggYSBET1MgYXR0YWNrIG9uIHRoZSB0b2tlbiBzZXJ2ZXI/IA0KDQo+IGFsb25l LiAgRm9yIHRob3NlIG9mIHlvdSB3aG8gcmVtZW1iZXIgTVNOIHN0YXJ0ZWQgb3V0IGFzIGFuIHgu MjUgbmV0d29yayANCj4gd2l0aG91dCBhbnkgcG9wMyBzZXJ2ZXJzLiAgSWYgSSByZW1lbWJlciBj b3JyZWN0bHkgdGhleSB3ZXJlIGEgDQo+IGZvcm0gb2YgSU1BUCANCg0KQUZBSUsgTVNOIHVzZWQg dG8gcHJvdmlkZSBTTVRQICJraWNrIiB3aGVyZWJ5IHRoZSBhY3Qgb2YgbG9nZ2luZyBpbnRvIHRo ZSBuZXR3b3JrIHByb3Zva2VkIHRoZSBTTVRQIHNlcnZlciB0byBhdHRlbXB0IHRvIGRlbGl2ZXIg eW91ciBtYWlsIHRvIHlvdS4gSSBtYXkgYmUgd3JvbmcgdGhvdWdoLg0KDQpkLg== _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 12:04:50 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 MAA05733 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:04:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h61G4Px16540 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:04:25 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XNcG-0004Ih-Sz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 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 MAA05721; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:04:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XNcD-00060j-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:04:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XNc8-00060g-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:04:16 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XNaw-00049B-J4; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:03:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XNad-00045h-6y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:02:45 -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 MAA05619 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:02:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XNaa-0005z4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:02:40 -0400 Received: from bay8-f77.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.77] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XNaJ-0005yJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:02:26 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:00:46 -0700 Received: from 62.252.196.90 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:00:44 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.196.90] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: danny@apache.org, asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] (no subject) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jul 2003 16:00:46.0203 (UTC) FILETIME=[EEC084B0:01C33FE9] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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 16:00:44 +0000 Thanks for your comments. My response are in the body of the message below. This post relates to the 'GIEIS' system viewable here at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Updates will be carried out this evening. Mark McCarron. >From: "Danny Angus" >To: "Mark McCarron" , >Subject: RE: [Asrg] (no subject) >Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 14:33:57 +0100 > >Mark McCarron wrote: > > > SMTP is a dying > > protocol, imagine what it would be like in 10 years? > >Erm .. I don't think that is quite correct, surely? >I know that IM is growing in popularity and I wouldn't be surprised if SMTP >was loosing "market share" but to describe what must be one of, if not the, >most widely used internet protocols as dying is preposterous. > >Perhaps you could back up your claim with evidence, I'd be happy to eat >humble pie if you're right. > Mark's Response: SMTP is a dying protocol. It was never designed to handle the current flow of email on the Internet nor provide the security for it. As long as SMTP exists, spam, virus', worms and trojans will only grow on the Internet to an unbelievable level. Every resolution has been attempted and failed. Let me make this crystal clear for everyone, SMTP cannot EVER be secured. We are rapidly coming to the point were email would be withdrawn completely. This is not some idle threat, but a proposal seriously being considered. Anyone who knows the technical side of SMTP, will tell you quite clearly that the protocol itself is to blame. Spam accounts for 30% of all traffic on the Internet now, what percentage would it be in 10 years? > > This will be easy enough. There will be a period of transition. > > Its not as > > hard as everyone thinks. I agree it will be a challange, but hey > > come on, > > its not rocket science. > >The science is not the hard bit, it is the cost. I'm sure we could come up >with a dozen really secure mail protocols from the expertise on this list >alone. Do you imagine that updates for every piece of mail software will be >made available free it might not be available at all for some systems if >you can't write it yourself, or that the admins who have to install and >manage it will do so without incurring cost? > Mark's Response: As I stated before and you can try this for yourself, the cost of implementing 'GIEIS' would be exceeded by the loss to business by keeping the SMTP protocol. Allow me to demonstrate this clearly for everyone. Yesterday, I calculated (at ciphertrust.com) that 1000 employees, earning an average of $15,000 per year, recieving 20 spam messages a day would result in losses of $31,250. Now, America has approx. 300 Million inhabitants, lets say 2 thirds of the population are not affected by spam in the workplace. That still leaves us with 100 Million who would be. Now we'll assume that their average wage would be $15,000 per year (very reasonable assumption), if it cost 1000, $31,250, then it costs $31.25 per person, per year. $31.25 multiplied by 100 Million is $3,125,000,000 per year. This is just for America alone. 'GIEIS' could absorb $1 Billion per year and still make business a substantial profit. Oh, and one other point, I haven't even begun to add on the cost of virus', trojans, etc. Therefore, 'GIEIS' has complete financial justificaton. Also, a protocol alone can NEVER secure email. That is impossible. It needs an architecture such as 'GIEIS'. >On a home user basis it may be trivial but in the wicked world of business >any such change would cost a packet, look at the cost of installing y2k >patches. > Mark's Response: Yep, but it was done. > > The system we tested it on was a private network, also, it wasn't > > using the > > full aspects of the 'GIEIS' design. It was just a feasibility > > test and it > > responded well, in fact, 100%. > >100% of what? did you try to break it, did you try to fool it, what happens >to mail if you launch a DOS attack on the token server? Mark's Response: Dos (denial of service) does not work on every machine. Proper security measures eliminate this threat. Dry run 'GIEIS' for yourself, its unbreakable. > > > alone. For those of you who remember MSN started out as an x.25 network > > without any pop3 servers. If I remember correctly they were a > > form of IMAP > >AFAIK MSN used to provide SMTP "kick" whereby the act of logging into the >network provoked the SMTP server to attempt to deliver your mail to you. I >may be wrong though. Mark's Response: SMTP is an outgoing mail server not incoming. I think your referring to the pop 3 server which would have been in 1998/1999. 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 Tue Jul 1 12:10:11 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 MAA05910 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:10:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h61G9jr18322 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:09:45 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XNhR-0004lR-To for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:09:45 -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 MAA05867; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:09:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XNhO-000624-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:09:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XNhI-00061P-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:09:36 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XNem-0004Om-K6; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:07:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XNeU-0004O1-Qb for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:06:42 -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 MAA05792 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:06:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XNeR-00061L-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:06:39 -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 19XNeE-00061A-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:06:28 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701120453.00b5a688@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Spencer Dawkins" , From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] GIEIS: you will obey. Resistance is futile. 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, 01 Jul 2003 12:04:54 -0400 Thank you Spencer. In general, people cool it down - we are not having a war here. Name calling will only increase discord and make the spammers happier. At 08:10 AM 7/1/2003 -0500, Spencer Dawkins wrote: >OK, I'm mystified by the purpose of posting this note >to ASRG. It's off-topic. If the purpose is to provide >background based on a contributor's contributions in another >forum, that's not exactly letting contributions in THIS >forum speak for themselves, now, is it? > >I know this is an IRTF research group, not an IETF working >group, but is there a reason why we DON'T agree to follow >ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3184.txt? At least, the part >that says: > > 2. IETF participants develop and test ideas impartially, without > finding fault with the colleague proposing the idea. > > We dispute ideas by using reasoned argument, rather than through > intimidation or ad hominem attack. Or, said in a somewhat more > IETF-like way: > > "Reduce the heat and increase the light" > >Spencer > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Hondin de Goot" >To: >Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 4:53 AM >Subject: [Asrg] GIEIS: you will obey. Resistance is futile. > > > > Step 2: (in progress) STOP SPAM! > > See: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis/ > > Report: tba > > > > > > Step 1: (DONE) Correct Einstein, Rayleigh, etc > > See: http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000175-8.html > > Report: > > > > --8><---- cut here ----><8-- > > > > Mark J McCarron, Member, posted 07-28-2002 16:06 > > > > For those that truely seek the truth, please search no longer. > > > > Can I prove it? > > > > Here is my seal > > > > IA > > M > > > > Place a mirror at 45 degrees from I to M and you will see that it > > reads, 'I AM HE', write it down as you see it, now place the mirror, > > vertically and the reflection will read, 'I AM 3'. > > > > 'I AM HE, I AM 3' > > > > > > In the book of John, it is said: > > > > 'God is Light' > > > > So, let us take God at his word and try to understand his 'nature'. > > > > If you see a blue sky, it is obvious that the atmosphere refracts > > light, just like a prism. > > > > Therefore, if the sky is blue and we see a yellow sun, what is the > > color of the light? > > > > Green > > > > Now you know why green is the most intense colour in the visual > > spectrum. > > > > Another point, if gravity pulls you down, what pulls a flame up? > > > > Answer: The 'darkness'. > > > > Why? > > > > The darkness is not darkness, it is light being refracted at > > different speeds that transfer it from visible light and heat to > > other forms of the electromagnetic spectrum. > > > > So, you could say 'the army of darkness' is another form of the > > light, not its adversary, it just travels faster and in different > > directions. > > > > If light is the 'innocent lamb' then the lion is the 'darkness' and > > the lion and the lamb walk together. > > > > Therefore, light is the electromagnetic spectrum not 'visible light'. > > 'Visible light' is a limited perception of the human body. > > > > 'There are more things to heaven and Earth than meets the eye.' > > > > If light travels in straight lines and everything in reality acts > > somewhat like a mirror, then it is possible that our eyes are not > > properly developed, due to us being in a hall of mirrors and learning > > by association (cognative development). > > > > Any examples? > > > > Yes, sit in a completely dark room with no light source and let your > > eyes adjust. > > > > Where is the light coming from? > > > > Answer: You!!!! > > > > 'You are the light' - Duh! > > > > Man's eyes can see more than the visible spectrum, however, > > polarisation must be completed. Use sets of mirrors to train > > your focus, not your vanity. > > > > You are already in Zion only Zion will not let you see it until you > > know true love for all things and have a single law. > > > > 'Do not hurt others, be true to yourself.' > > > > There is no right and wrong, only that which is done without consent > > of all involved parties. This is an infinite universe, there are all > > things here and this is our common bond, our love for each other. > > With true love, you will not want to harm anyone else and you would > > lay down your life to protect the innocent. > > > > If you want a really technical answer then here is a correction to > > Einstein's work: > > > > If E=MC squared, and energy is infinite then energy can only be > > represented by the number 1. > > > > C squared (light squared) will also be 1. > > > > Mass again will also be 1. > > > > So, > > > > E= MC squared equals 1=1x1 squared or, in other words, > > > > Energy = Light cubed > > > > This is what gives rise to 'aspect ratio' and the infinity effect > > of facing two mirrors. > > > > This also means that those that we see as dead are not, they are just > > out of our perceptions. > > > > Stop applying your perception to reality, pay attention to it, and > > work backwards from there to find the truth. > > > > It is easier to pour water from the top of the pyramid and down the > > outside than to begin at the bottom and try and move it up. > > > > Make life simple, because it really is, once you are no longer: > > > > Babbling like a child in baby-lon > > > > We are here, and have all the answers you seek. Why not come and > > see me, instead of whining at me? > > > > > > Absolute perfection. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > > > ------------------ > > Mark McCarron IP: 62.252.128.6 > > > > --8><---- cut here ----><8-- > > > > > > Step 0: (DONE) Manifest Self. > > See: The Gospel According to Mark (the other Mark) > > Report: (Ineffable, sorry) > > > > -- > > __________________________________________________________ > > Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com > > http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Tue Jul 1 12:11:37 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 MAA05986 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:11:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h61GBC618913 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:11:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XNiq-0004uy-9k for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:11:12 -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 MAA05962; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:11:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XNin-00063b-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:11:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XNih-00063Y-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:11:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XNif-0004o4-HR; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:11:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XNhl-0004mk-DS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:10:05 -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 MAA05897 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:10:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XNhi-00062H-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:10:02 -0400 Received: from bay8-f111.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.111] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XNhX-00061C-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:09:51 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:05:21 -0700 Received: from 62.252.196.90 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:05:21 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.196.90] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: danny@apache.org, asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - Additonal Condierations Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jul 2003 16:05:21.0540 (UTC) FILETIME=[92DD9C40:01C33FEA] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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 16:05:21 +0000 Thanks for your comments. My response are in the body of the message below. This post relates to the 'GIEIS' system viewable here at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Updates will be carried out this evening. Mark McCarron. >From: "Danny Angus" >To: "Mark McCarron" , >Subject: RE: [Asrg] (no subject) >Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 14:33:57 +0100 > >Mark McCarron wrote: > > > SMTP is a dying > > protocol, imagine what it would be like in 10 years? > >Erm .. I don't think that is quite correct, surely? >I know that IM is growing in popularity and I wouldn't be surprised if SMTP >was loosing "market share" but to describe what must be one of, if not the, >most widely used internet protocols as dying is preposterous. > >Perhaps you could back up your claim with evidence, I'd be happy to eat >humble pie if you're right. > Mark's Response: SMTP is a dying protocol. It was never designed to handle the current flow of email on the Internet nor provide the security for it. As long as SMTP exists, spam, virus', worms and trojans will only grow on the Internet to an unbelievable level. Every resolution has been attempted and failed. Let me make this crystal clear for everyone, SMTP cannot EVER be secured. We are rapidly coming to the point were email would be withdrawn completely. This is not some idle threat, but a proposal seriously being considered. Anyone who knows the technical side of SMTP, will tell you quite clearly that the protocol itself is to blame. Spam accounts for 30% of all traffic on the Internet now, what percentage would it be in 10 years? > > This will be easy enough. There will be a period of transition. > > Its not as > > hard as everyone thinks. I agree it will be a challange, but hey > > come on, > > its not rocket science. > >The science is not the hard bit, it is the cost. I'm sure we could come up >with a dozen really secure mail protocols from the expertise on this list >alone. Do you imagine that updates for every piece of mail software will be >made available free it might not be available at all for some systems if >you can't write it yourself, or that the admins who have to install and >manage it will do so without incurring cost? > Mark's Response: As I stated before and you can try this for yourself, the cost of implementing 'GIEIS' would be exceeded by the loss to business by keeping the SMTP protocol. Allow me to demonstrate this clearly for everyone. Yesterday, I calculated (at ciphertrust.com) that 1000 employees, earning an average of $15,000 per year, recieving 20 spam messages a day would result in losses of $31,250. Now, America has approx. 300 Million inhabitants, lets say 2 thirds of the population are not affected by spam in the workplace. That still leaves us with 100 Million who would be. Now we'll assume that their average wage would be $15,000 per year (very reasonable assumption), if it cost 1000, $31,250, then it costs $31.25 per person, per year. $31.25 multiplied by 100 Million is $3,125,000,000 per year. This is just for America alone. 'GIEIS' could absorb $1 Billion per year and still make business a substantial profit. Oh, and one other point, I haven't even begun to add on the cost of virus', trojans, etc. Therefore, 'GIEIS' has complete financial justificaton. Also, a protocol alone can NEVER secure email. That is impossible. It needs an architecture such as 'GIEIS'. >On a home user basis it may be trivial but in the wicked world of business >any such change would cost a packet, look at the cost of installing y2k >patches. > Mark's Response: Yep, but it was done. > > The system we tested it on was a private network, also, it wasn't > > using the > > full aspects of the 'GIEIS' design. It was just a feasibility > > test and it > > responded well, in fact, 100%. > >100% of what? did you try to break it, did you try to fool it, what happens >to mail if you launch a DOS attack on the token server? Mark's Response: Dos (denial of service) does not work on every machine. Proper security measures eliminate this threat. Dry run 'GIEIS' for yourself, its unbreakable. > > > alone. For those of you who remember MSN started out as an x.25 network > > without any pop3 servers. If I remember correctly they were a > > form of IMAP > >AFAIK MSN used to provide SMTP "kick" whereby the act of logging into the >network provoked the SMTP server to attempt to deliver your mail to you. I >may be wrong though. Mark's Response: SMTP is an outgoing mail server not incoming. I think your referring to the pop 3 server which would have been in 1998/1999. Mark McCarron. _________________________________________________________________ Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you. http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 12:12:32 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 MAA06038 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:12:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h61GC6R19394 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:12:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XNji-00052j-LD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:12:06 -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 MAA06015; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:12:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XNjf-00064G-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:12:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XNjZ-00064D-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:11:57 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XNjc-0004vr-A9; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:12:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XNio-0004rc-KZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:11:10 -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 MAA05959 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:11:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XNil-00063G-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:11:07 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=mr10.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XNia-00061Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:10:56 -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 ACE59673; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:08:03 -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 AJV63020; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:08:01 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Kee Hinckley'" , "'Yakov Shafranovich'" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] News Article - FTC's do-not-call registry email blocked by Yahoo Message-ID: <002901c33fea$f3b8d660$640aa8c0@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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: 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, 1 Jul 2003 12:08:01 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kee Hinckley wrote: > 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. This just isn't right. The FTC mails were not spam and they should not have been blocked. The burden for ensuring that non-spam messages pass through the email system should be on those who block messages, not on those who send them. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 12:13:34 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 MAA06090 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:13:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h61GD9J20023 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:13:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XNkj-0005Cs-24 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:13:09 -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 MAA06072; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:13:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XNkf-000658-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:13:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XNkZ-000654-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:12:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XNkb-000562-4H; Tue, 01 Jul 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 19XNjc-0004xq-KR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:12:00 -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 MAA06006 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:11:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XNjZ-000647-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:11:57 -0400 Received: from tarbolton.demon.co.uk ([212.229.119.215] helo=killerbees.co.uk) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XNjO-00063X-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:11:46 -0400 Received: from mailtest ([192.168.0.2]) by killerbees.co.uk (JAMES SMTP Server 3.0a1) with SMTP ID 274; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:26:25 +0100 (BST) From: "Danny Angus" To: "Mark McCarron" , Subject: RE: *Suspected Spam *RE: [Asrg] (no subject) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 1 Jul 2003 17:14:28 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PiBTTVRQIGlzIGFuIG91dGdvaW5nIG1haWwgc2VydmVyIG5vdCBpbmNvbWluZy4gIEkgdGhpbmsg eW91ciANCj4gcmVmZXJyaW5nIHRvIHRoZSANCj4gcG9wIDMgc2VydmVyIHdoaWNoIHdvdWxkIGhh dmUgYmVlbiBpbiAxOTk4LzE5OTkuDQoNCk5vIGl0IGlzbid0ISANCg0KSG93IGNhbiBpdCBiZT8g T25lIG1hY2hpbmVzIG91dGdvaW5nIG1lc3NhZ2UgaXMgYW5vdGhlcnMgaW5jb21pbmcgbWVzc2Fn ZS4gIDotRCA6LUQNCg0KU01UUCBpcyBhIFBVU0ggcHJvdG9jb2wsIFBPUDMgaXMgYSBQVUxMIHBy b3RvY29sLiANCkl0IGlzIG5vdCB1bmhlYXJkIG9mIGZvciBJU1AncyB0byB1c2UgU01UUCB0byBQ VVNIIG1haWwgdG8gY2xpZW50cyB3aGVuIHRoZWlyIGNvbm5lY3Rpb24gaXMgZGV0ZWN0ZWQgYnkg dGhlaXIgSVNQLg0KDQpkLg== _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 12:24:39 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 MAA06469 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:24:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h61GOEq21330 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:24:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XNvR-0005Xx-UL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:24:13 -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 MAA06452; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:24:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XNvO-0006BZ-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:24:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XNvJ-0006BW-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:24:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XNvE-0005RX-Tc; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:24:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XNui-0005Qx-Mu for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:23:28 -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 MAA06443 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:23:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XNuf-0006BM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:23:25 -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 19XNuU-0006BA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:23:14 -0400 Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Scott Nelson Subject: Re: [Asrg] Disposable short-term E-mail addresses Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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 09:22:36 -0700 At 03:06 AM 7/1/03 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: [edited] > >A company is offering free "disposable" E-mail addresses... > Spam Gourmet offers a similar free service - http://www.spamgourmet.com/ > >Anybody have any thoughts on this one? Boon or bane? Useful, or dangerous? > It's useful, but like address hiding in general, it doesn't stop spammers from finding your real addresses and spamming that. Scott Nelson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 12:36:26 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 MAA06686 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:36:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h61Ga1I22351 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 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 19XO6q-0005oI-QP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:36:00 -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 MAA06663; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:35:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XO6n-0006GF-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:35:57 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XO6h-0006GC-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:35:51 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XO5t-0005gi-4i; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:35:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XO5U-0005gC-9P for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:34:36 -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 MAA06644 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:34:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XO5Q-0006Fn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:34:32 -0400 Received: from bay8-f74.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.74] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XO5F-0006FB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:34:22 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:32:12 -0700 Received: from 213.104.228.153 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:32:12 GMT X-Originating-IP: [213.104.228.153] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: hondin.degoot@programmer.net, asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] GIEIS: you will obey. Resistance is futile. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jul 2003 16:32:12.0755 (UTC) FILETIME=[53398230:01C33FEE] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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 16:32:12 +0000 That was really funny, I almost hurt myself laughing. I have been inactive on the Atlantis Rising message board for almost 2 years. I just recently returned, I was in deep research into electromagnetics and its biological effects. My account was hacked in that time and a number of posts appeared claiming to be from me. Not hard when your password was 'access', I didn't really think anyone would bother. Anyway, people have problems when it comes to logical arguements. When they have no response that they can give, they look for anything else they can find. Why not actually join the debate on 'GIEIS' instead of posting subject matters that have nothing to do with this group? _________________________________________________________________ Tired of 56k? Get a FREE BT Broadband connection 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 Tue Jul 1 13:47:36 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 NAA08042 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:47:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RINBf21718 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:23:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VxsG-0005bt-S0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:23:05 -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 OAA09419; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:22:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vxrj-0005Eo-AZ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:22:31 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VuUL-0002P9-MJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:46:09 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (argon.connect.org.uk [193.110.243.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA20716 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 04:57:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19VoR8-0004UX-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:18:26 +0100 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal To: "Yakov Shafranovich" 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, 27 Jun 2003 09:18:26 +0100 > The charter goes on and on about consent, however aside from Gordon's > HTML > blocking thread, there has been no discussion of that. Oooh, and I just remembered ... <20030310140710.GA6405@danisch.de> the "Four oracles model" from Hadmut Danisch although this was strictly in regard to taxonimies of anti-spam systems - it might also be useful (?) in suggesting a general framework -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 13:47:52 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 NAA08076 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:47:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RIdVN17269 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:39:31 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vy8A-0004UO-TW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:39:30 -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 OAA11792; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:39:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vy7d-0003tE-25; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:38:57 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VwI8-0000op-6m for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:41:40 -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 MAA07019 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:41:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VwI6-0004Z8-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:41:38 -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 19VwHu-0004Z5-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:41:27 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030627124017.00bb9668@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] http://donotcall.gov/ 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 12:40:56 -0400 At 02:49 AM 6/27/2003 -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote: >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. I had a similar problem - I use disposable addressed at a domain, and the address I entered - donotcall.gov@domain.com did not go through. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 13:47:43 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 NAA08057 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:47:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RIZLS10306 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:35:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vy3z-0002en-6J for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:35:11 -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 OAA11208; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:35:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vy3D-0001wb-Ln; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:34:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VvjO-0006v6-JO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:05:46 -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 MAA05637 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:05:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VvjN-0004C6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:05:45 -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 19VvjB-0004C1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:05:34 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030627120304.00b92090@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 - SpamCop.net hit by a DDOS attack Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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 12:05:11 -0400 According to this (http://www.ds-osac.org/view.cfm?KEY=7E4452434452&type=2B170C1E0A3A0F162820) article, SpamCop.net has been hit a DDOS attack from a distributed network of zombie computers. This may be a possible revenge attack by spammers, but it goes with what Barry has been saying before - that spammers seem to control many infected computers on the Net. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 13:47:59 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 NAA08129 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:47:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RIZLc10309 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:35:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vy3z-0002fU-6N for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:35:11 -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 OAA11221; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:35:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vy3D-0001w2-8v; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:34:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VviL-0006qW-2D for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:04:41 -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 MAA05617 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:04:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VviJ-0004Bm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:04:39 -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 19Vvi7-0004Bc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:04:28 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030627120337.00ba3700@solidmatrix.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'" 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 12:03:42 -0400 At 10:37 AM 6/27/2003 -0400, Bob Wyman 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. While it is true then specific proposals have been advanced, there has been no discussion of an overall consent framework that is discussed in the charter. Once an overall framework is discussed and in place, all the specific consent proposals will fit right in. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 13:47:41 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 NAA08044 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:47:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RIPdQ24751 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:25:39 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VxsI-0005d6-NE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:23:06 -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 OAA09281; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:22:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VxrI-0004gZ-Am; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:22:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VnDT-0006v6-Ho for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 03:00:15 -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 DAA19477 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 03:00:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VnDP-0001sg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 03:00:11 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VnDF-0001sa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 03:00:01 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19VnD6-0003bV-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 07:59:52 +0100 In-Reply-To: <3EFBBFAF.9010400@azza.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal To: "Selby Hatch" 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 07:59:52 +0100 > > I'm posting this again for any who may have missed it. > Please don't. A reference to the original message would be sufficient. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 13:47:53 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 NAA08093 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:47:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RIZLS10304 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:35:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vy3z-0002fW-7H for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:35:11 -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 OAA11220; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:35:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vy3I-00026L-85; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:34:28 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VvwH-0007fI-T3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:19:35 -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 MAA06047 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:19:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VvwG-0004Ib-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:19:04 -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 19Vvw4-0004IK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:18:53 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030627121703.00ba3700@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Jon Kyme" , "Eric D. Williams" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 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 12:18:29 -0400 At 09:18 AM 6/27/2003 +0100, Jon Kyme wrote: > > The charter goes on and on about consent, however aside from Gordon's > > HTML > > blocking thread, there has been no discussion of that. > >Oooh, and I just remembered ... ><20030310140710.GA6405@danisch.de> the >"Four oracles model" from Hadmut Danisch > >although this was strictly in regard to taxonimies of anti-spam >systems - it might also be useful (?) in suggesting a general framework There is also an old taxonomy on the site from the chair (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/draft-asrg-taxonomy-anti-spam-systems.txt) and an ancient list of requirements (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/draft-asrg-anti-spam-requirements.txt). I think Eric Williams was working on more updated documents for these. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 13:48:06 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 NAA08290 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:48:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RIbna13805 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:37:49 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vy6V-0003Zz-BX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:37:47 -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 OAA11612; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:37:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vy5x-0003Ho-0w; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:37:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vw5S-000875-SF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:28:34 -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 MAA06561 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:28:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vw5R-0004Rh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:28:33 -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 19Vw5E-0004RL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:28:22 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030627122353.00ba3700@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: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626205450.00b41768@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: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:27:57 -0400 At 07:53 AM 6/27/2003 +0100, Jon Kyme wrote: > > >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 Original message at https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00669.html > "[Asrg] What would consent look >like?" Original message at https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01022.html: ---snip--- Consent might look something like this: applies-to: user@domain.example classes: set of message classifications access: allow | deny scope: local | organisational | global ---snip--- And _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 13:48:07 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 NAA08319 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:48:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RIXaW05304 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:33:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vy2S-0001NT-9I for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:33:36 -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 OAA10876; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:33:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vy1s-00011I-Md; Fri, 27 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 19VvUR-0006Ev-RR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:50:34 -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 LAA05009 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:49:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VvTw-00042n-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:49:48 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.224.249]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VvTl-00040y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:49:37 -0400 Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19VvQZ-0006ea-00 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:46:19 +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 19VvQT-0006e1-00 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:46:13 +0200 From: wayne Lines: 29 Message-ID: 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:RMeAfH6kSbFJ0l/MOctVCBLgN3k= Subject: [Asrg] FTC Spam Conference videos are available for download Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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 10:46:33 -0500 Chris Lewis mentioned this in a follow-up to another thread, but in case you missed it... Bruce Pennypacker has been kind enough to buy and digitize copies of the FTC Spam Conference videos. They are available at: http://bruce.pennypacker.org/ftc/ Please consider using the bittorrent downloads and leaving the download clients running after your downloads finish. Using bittorrent will be faster for you, and leaving the downloads running will help provide bandwidth for other people to download. The tapes are available in three formats. There are mpeg-1 videos that are in the 440-610MB range per tape. There are also mpeg-4 videos that are "only" 65-85MB, but they have been re-encoded to reduce the quality of the videos. They are, in my opinion, still very viewable. There are also audio only mpg3's available. Besides Chris Lewis, there are quite a few regular posters to the ASRG mailing list that show up on these tapes. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 13:48:13 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 NAA08383 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:48:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RIZM210307 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:35:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vy3z-0002f5-6K for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:35:11 -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 OAA11209; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:35:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vy3K-0002Bc-Rr; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:34:30 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vw3b-00081Q-Mj for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:26:39 -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 MAA06408 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:26:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vw3a-0004On-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:26:38 -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 19Vw3O-0004Ok-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:26:27 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030627121953.00b97d88@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: 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 12:23:26 -0400 At 09:18 AM 6/27/2003 +0100, Jon Kyme wrote: > > The charter goes on and on about consent, however aside from Gordon's > > HTML > > blocking thread, there has been no discussion of that. > >Oooh, and I just remembered ... ><20030310140710.GA6405@danisch.de> the >"Four oracles model" from Hadmut Danisch > >although this was strictly in regard to taxonimies of anti-spam >systems - it might also be useful (?) in suggesting a general framework Very interesting, the original message is at https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01027.html. (BTW, we need a search engine here). --snip-- o First stage: We receive(d) a message, feed that message and all connection information to the first oracle and ask: "What do we know about the sender/origin/history of that message?" o Second stage: We feed the message and the first oracle's answer to the second oracle and ask: "Is that message spam?" o Third stage: We feed the message and the answers of the first and second oracle's answers to the third oracle and ask: "What do we do with that particular message?" o Fourth stage: We feed the message and the former answers to the fourth oracle and ask: "How do we react, what (c|sh)ould we do to prepare for future, to improve the first three oracles, to make the sender stop?" ---snip--- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 13:48:26 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 NAA08488 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:48:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RIZM010313 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:35:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vy3z-0002fS-6L for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:35:11 -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 OAA11216; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:35:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vy3E-0001xU-9o; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:34:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VvpP-0007OL-MU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:11:59 -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 MAA05828 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:11:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VvpO-0004EG-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:11:58 -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 19VvpC-0004E7-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:11:47 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030627120912.00babb10@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: <16123.43091.763213.273289@world.std.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626205937.00b3e2e8@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030626111203.00b4eb68@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030626205937.00b3e2e8@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, 27 Jun 2003 12:11:25 -0400 At 10:13 PM 6/26/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: >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. Then according to you, how is spam different from a DDOS attack were thousands of computers start spewing packets? 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. > > 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. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 13:48:18 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 NAA08434 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:48:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RId4515809 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:39:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vy7k-00046c-Gk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:39:04 -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 OAA11697; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:38:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vy6f-0003bR-6B; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:37:57 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VwD3-0000Kx-Se for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:36:40 -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 MAA06868 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:36:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VwD2-0004XG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:36:24 -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 19VwCq-0004X4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:36:13 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030627123243.00b52458@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] Consent Proposal In-Reply-To: <200306270403.h5R43Puj013664@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, 27 Jun 2003 12:35:45 -0400 At 10:03 PM 6/26/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > 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. If a user's ISP does not run a consent-system, then the user will probably get a MUAs that does or a plugin for a MUAs that gives him that ability. The implementation of consent on MUAs will obviously differ from implementation on MTAs. > > 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. I think he picked a wrong term, we are seeking to create a common framework for consent systems. Various pieces of this framework are implementation specific and are done by MTAs and MUAs as they see fit. These various implementation i.e. consent systems, all interoperate via standard protocols such as CRI. > > 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. Correct, more discussion is needed. CRI would me an example of a protocol that allows different consent systems to interoperate. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 13:48:20 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 NAA08457 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:48:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RIcZ514554 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:38:35 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vy7D-0003m8-Gk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:38:31 -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 OAA11654; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:38:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vy6L-0003WC-98; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:37:37 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vw7f-0008Du-01 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:31:21 -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 MAA06700 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:30:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vw7d-0004Ux-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:30:49 -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 19Vw7R-0004Ui-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:30:38 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030627122823.00babb10@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: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:29:46 -0400 At 12:55 AM 6/27/2003 -0500, gep2@terabites.com 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. > >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. How the rules are defined is left to the implementators. The point is to create a general framework and leave most of the details of specific implementations. > > 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. Once again this is left up to the implementation. 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 Tue Jul 1 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 NAA08594 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:48:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RIZMo10311 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:35:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vy3z-0002fV-7I for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:35:11 -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 OAA11211; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:35:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vy3G-00024k-ET; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:34:26 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VvuD-0007Za-2D for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:16:57 -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 MAA05974 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:16:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VvuB-0004H5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:16:55 -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 19Vvtz-0004Gt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:16:44 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030627121420.00b97d88@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: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626205450.00b41768@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: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:16:21 -0400 At 07:53 AM 6/27/2003 +0100, Jon Kyme wrote: >[..] > >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 This is consistent with the charter which proposes these components as well. ---snip--- 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: o Consent Expression Component: This involves recipients expressing a policy that gives consent or non-consent for certain types of communications o 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. o 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. ---snip--- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 13:48:42 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 NAA08748 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:48:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RIdpl18165 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:39:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vy8U-0004iu-Vy for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:39:51 -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 OAA11924; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:39:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vy7z-0004Ku-Qp; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:39:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vxfx-0004IX-1U for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:10:21 -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 OAA08897 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:10:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vxff-0004z9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:10:03 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=mr10.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VxfU-0004z6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:09:53 -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 ACA62943; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:09:14 -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 AJO29130; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:09:13 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'Jon Kyme'" Cc: "'ASRG'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Consent Proposal Message-ID: <004b01c33cd7$43f87f20$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: <5.2.0.9.2.20030627115412.00b97d88@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 14:09:34 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > an overall consent framework=20 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. 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...) 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. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 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 NAA08618 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:48:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RIN2F21521 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:23:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VxsD-0005ab-HL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:23:01 -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 OAA09282; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:22:42 -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-0004lJ-33; 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 19VuLw-0002I1-J4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:37:43 -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 KAA01612 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:37:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VuLb-000369-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:37:07 -0400 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VuLQ-00034Q-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:36:56 -0400 Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h5REXdG11495 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:33:39 -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 NLV6F0Q4; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:33:39 -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 NLVG6D6H; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:33:38 -0400 Message-ID: <3EFC568C.3080905@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> <5.2.0.9.2.20030626235411.00bb9dc8@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 10:37:00 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > 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. A lot of what everyone on that panel said supported that, especially Nick and Michael, and my comment (which should be on the transcript). Machines that open proxy (whether by naive analogx or wormed spamware) are responsible for at _least_ 70% of all of our spam. Some numbers off the spamtrap (numbers are: total over past 7 days, %percentage of entire spamtrap): BOPM 6611509 35.70 MONKEYPROXY 10091018 54.48 NTauto 1519398 8.20 NTliar 13481631 72.79 OBproxies 2784368 15.03 OSproxy 396490 2.14 OSsocks 8478399 45.78 These are effectiveness rates on our spamtrap against various open proxy blacklists. DNSBL users will recognize several of these. NT* are ones we build ourself. "NTauto" is a combined "open relay and proxy" blacklist which doesn't generally overlap with others (it won't perform a test if the IP is blacklisted by anybody else). "NTliar" is a very specialized blacklist detecting attacks from open proxies. And in case you're wondering about its reliability, in the three weeks since NTliar was developed, it hasn't had a _single_ false positive. Ever. No, sorry, I cannot reveal how NTliar works without a NDA. If you use DNSBLs, or even if you don't, there's no excuse not to use a good open proxy blacklist. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 13:48:35 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 NAA08664 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:48:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RINBI21668 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:23:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VxsG-0005bv-Pp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:23:04 -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 OAA09284; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:22:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VxrQ-0004o3-21; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:22:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VuO1-0002P9-0t for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:39:37 -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 JAA27971 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:54:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VtgA-0002n3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:54:18 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc11.attbi.com ([204.127.198.35]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vtfz-0002mn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:54:07 -0400 Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164](untrusted sender)) by attbi.com (rwcrmhc11) with SMTP id <2003062713531601300oql29e>; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:53:16 +0000 X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas Subject: Re: [Asrg] Bug, or Feature? Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: mathew In-Reply-To: <16123.27931.953786.128919@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: 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: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:53:16 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 06:00 PM, Barry Shein wrote: > 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. The interesting thing is that it's mostly possible to configure a Windows 2000 system this way. I have to use Windows 2000 at work, and I always run as a completely untrusted user with no registry or system modification privileges. I also remove Outlook Express and its various hidden components which many worms and viruses use to do their nasty tricks, and disable ActiveX and scripting in IE. I use Mozilla as my web browser. This week I twice had a warning dialog caused by an installer failing to install some piece of unidentified software which I had not asked for. I tried to track down where it came from, but Windows doesn't seem to offer much of an audit trail for "What launched this process?" Of course, there are still all the unpatched security holes that allow privilege elevation, but 99% of the problem is IE, ActiveX, Outlook, and running as admin the whole time. Microsoft could fix those problems tomorrow if they wanted to. The sad thing is, running as an unprivileged user breaks a *lot* of software, including some commercial applications. The culture of zero security in Windows is so ingrained now that it's assumed your Windows system will be wide open to the world. Mac OS X is mostly locked down by default. You can trash the applications, but you can't change the OS or startup sequence without a dialog requesting root privileges. Apple also recommend the "running as an unprivileged user" approach, though they don't make that the default. Unlike in Windows, running as an unprivileged user on a Mac doesn't break much. So far I've only had one application have problems. (Adobe Photoshop Elements, in case anyone's curious, and they have a note about it in their knowledgebase.) mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 13:48:32 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 NAA08505 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:48:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RIU6d00945 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:30:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vxyz-0000EI-LS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:30:01 -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 OAA10347; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:29:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VxxG-0007uJ-1r; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:28:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vuwy-0004Wz-3I for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:15:59 -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 LAA03611 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:15:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vuwi-0003f7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:15:28 -0400 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VuwX-0003eq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:15:17 -0400 Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (americasm07.nt.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h5RFE5G12217; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:14:05 -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 NLV6G1M4; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:14:06 -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 NLVG6D8J; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:14:05 -0400 Message-ID: <3EFC6007.8040402@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: Bill Thorson CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] SMTP server connections that disconnect right away References: <3EFBB41A.9040202@privacynetworks.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 11:17:27 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 or: HELO somevalue MAIL FROM: QUIT Where the parameters for all of the attempts are exactly the same. Ie: 50,000 "HELO my IP/QUIT" per day. Perhaps 20-30% of all connections to the spamtrap show no discernible purpose whatsoever - repeated connections with exactly the same parameters, no attempts to deliver email, no attempts to dictionary, no discernible effectiveness in trying to detect/exploit holes. Repeated connections with _no_ commands. What are they achieving by doing this over and over? Who knows? Probably broken spamware. Ie: something that expects a response to EHLO, but the spamtrap 500's those, and keeps trying to deliver the same thing over and over.... Maybe they're trying to DDOS the spamtrap. Singularly pointless - it's on a honking big pipe (it's receiving 2-3Gb/hour as it is), and PostFix's "smtp-sink" benchmarking tool can handle any volume anyone throws at it. You'd have to saturate a partial DS3 to slow it down. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 13:48:48 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 NAA08750 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:48:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RIMw821380 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:22:58 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vxs9-0005Tm-LF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:22:57 -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 OAA09283; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:22:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VxrG-0004ev-IY; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:22:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vw9u-00006d-Nn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:33:25 -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 MAA06768 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:33:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vw9t-0004WB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:33:09 -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 19Vw9g-0004Vu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:32:57 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030627123011.030f0978@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: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:32:32 -0400 At 05:53 PM 6/26/2003 -1000, Peter Kay wrote: >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 From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 13:48:49 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 NAA08844 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:48:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RINQp21852 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:23:26 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VxsV-0005fW-2x for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:23:19 -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 OAA09391; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:22:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vxs8-00055g-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:22:56 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VxrV-00054B-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:22:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VxrX-000553-1N; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:22:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VuSL-0002P9-7h for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:44:05 -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 IAA26102 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 08:44:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vsab-0002Ji-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 08:44:29 -0400 Received: from h-d1d1248a.digitalpod.com ([209.209.36.138] helo=yaweno.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VsaQ-0002JQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 08:44:18 -0400 Received: from apocalypse [206.170.148.241] by yaweno.com (SMTPD32-7.03) id AEF3FB60074; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:14:59 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Howard Roth" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Consent Proposal 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: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626171332.00bd13e0@pop.pocketmail.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: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:18:25 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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. 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. And probably enter a few basic filters like deny any message that mentions Viagra. 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. So I think having something at both ends makes sense in the short term. The long term it should be an issue for the MTA to manage based on some parameters that the user or ISP set. I like the idea of a white list that is supported by some industry entity like the DMA. 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. The bottom line is that consent should be easy for the general user to deal with and understand. Howard Roth -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Yakov Shafranovich Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 2:23 PM 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 From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 13:48:51 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 NAA08852 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:48:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RIMwL21386 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:22:58 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vxs9-0005Vm-Vf for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:22:58 -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 OAA09320; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:22:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VxrW-00052x-5S; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:22:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VuSL-0002P9-CH for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:44:05 -0400 Received: from mnr1.microneil.com ([216.88.36.96]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA25342 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 08:22:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix, from userid 93) id 8F58729C043; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 07:43:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MicroNeil.com (mail.microneil.com [216.88.36.161]) by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A33729C03D for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 07:43:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from toshiba-user.microneil.com [63.86.179.204] by MicroNeil.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.05) id A679CF8F0132; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 08:20:09 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.0.20030627073407.00b4b478@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] 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Declude-Spoolname: D3679132.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: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 08:20:07 -0400 At 06:40 PM 6/26/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: Barry Shein > > 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".) > > 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. I have to strongly agree with Vernon here ... but I might paint Receiver pays in a stronger light. I feel it is absolutely vital that we keep the economic model in the hands of the receiver. What is lacking currently is the technological leverage for them to control also what they receive... but that is far from impossible, it just hasn't been done yet. When the receiver pays they _can_ have control over what they receive. If the sender pays then we will all be "watching television" because the sender will have complete control over everything that is available to be seen. Only those with deep pockets and the right connections (political and otherwise) will be able to present their "ideas" if the sender pays. This is very, very bad. The whole benefit of the Internet is that it lowers the barrier to the free flow of ideas. It's already well proven that the current economic model can easily cover the costs of infrastructure. In fact the costs are truly low enough that the Internet can be made available to nearly everyone. This is good and can be improved. If the economic model is shifted then prices will be increased to the level of the highest bidder raising a barrier that will make it nearly impossible for any other content to make it onto the net. In that model, no matter what you are looking for, you will only find what big money wants you to see. We've got to fix the technical problems with network abuse using technical, non-centralized means, and we've got to get that work done BEFORE big business and government find enough leverage to squash the best benefits of the Internet. To me, that danger is the worst problem presented by spam. Spam is reaching (has reached) levels where there is a demand for a solution which means there is money and political favor to be had by anyone with the ability to force "their particular solution". If we don't short circuit this problem before that happens then we might as well say goodbye to any of the potential benefits of the Internet, sit back, and watch it turn into nothing more than another advertising medium in the absolute control of the highest bidder and the political whims of the day. (That would be ironic don't you think? - if the "solution" to the spam (email advertising) problem squashed everything except advertising in the end?) 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 you don't know what I mean by these things please ask - I'm trying not to write a book in this note...) 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. If we make the mechanisms for this open and available (not protected IP but open standards) then they will proliferate _because_ of the spam problem and will become a natural suppressive force against it. Those who do not implement the protocols will be inundated with abuse... those that do implement them will find great benefit... there will be no stopping a solution like this. Now lets go build it and stop focusing on greed. (Be careful what you wish for you might get it!) _M Pete McNeil (madscientist) President, MicroNeil Research Corporation. Chief SortMonster, www.sortmonster.com. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 13:49:14 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 NAA09133 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:49:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5PNRAu04682 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:27:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VJfS-0001DR-Ro for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:27:10 -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 TAA11185; 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 19VJfQ-0002AU-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-0002AO-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-00017Q-CU; 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 19VJeM-00013q-W9 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 TAA10948 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:21:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VJa0-00026o-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:21:32 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VJZp-00026l-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:21:21 -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 h5PNLG87009996 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:21:16 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA17728; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:21:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16122.11883.895518.586214@world.std.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Viruses In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D228C@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D228C@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: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:21:15 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 25, 2003 at 12:49 pbaker@verisign.com (Hallam-Baker, Phillip) wrote: > > I guess you can claim that if you dismiss any vulnerability > > as an "odd serious > > bug". To my mind there's a difference between, say, a sendmail vulnerability which is discovered and a patch issued within hours and a virus which can infect Windows95/98/NT/XP/2000/ME and probably other versions which are releases spanning several years. See: http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/pf/backdoor.jeem.html I realize you want to defend MS for some reason and just launch into this sports-team bar babble retort like we're arguing about who was the best pitcher. But I maintain with complete professional objectivity that there are serious flaws inherent in Windows OS design which allow a virus such as Jeem to infect several generations of Windows OS at a deep, system level. Jeem, as a case in point: Copies itself to the system directory Adds a new registry key causing it to auto-start on boot and seems to do all this without any special system privileges. Now, without invoking how "some other OS is worse in your opinion", and accepting that this sort of thing (and exactly this also) seems to be a major vector in the spam problem, tell me how this happens across at least six major releases. I mean I want to know what technical flaws it exploits and why those flaws are present and available across all six OS releases (by "why" I don't mean philosophical "why", I mean what purpose this flaw serves or why it hasn't been fixed or has it?) 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.) Try to remain technical and on point, and please try to avoid sophistry. I really believe we are nearing the actual heart of the spam problem. -- -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 Jul 1 14:33:35 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 NAA08079 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:47:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RIdRQ17073 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:39:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vy87-0004RC-7x for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:39:27 -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 OAA11782; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:39:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vy7R-0003or-5u; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:38:45 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VwGy-0000k6-Ir for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:40:28 -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 MAA06989 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:40:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VwGx-0004Yp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:40:27 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.224.249]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VwGm-0004Yk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:40:16 -0400 Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19VwFE-0003EI-00 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:38:40 +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 19VwDi-00033b-00 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:37:06 +0200 From: wayne Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: 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:RaPfBoBNwpbTz4gB6RjEVtViF7c= Subject: [Asrg] Re: 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 11:37:26 -0500 In Kee Hinckley writes: > characters. Either the email gets delivered or it doesn't. Not their > problem. Well, I would say that not delivering email is one of their problems. I used the website early this morning (2:00 EST), only two hours after it went online, and have yet to receive the email confirmations that they promised. I would hope they could at least parse wayne@midwestcs.com. Oh, I just check, and their website is down. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 14:33:35 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 NAA08292 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:48:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RITw000786 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:29:58 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vxye-00007G-63 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:29:40 -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 OAA10345; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:29:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VxxJ-00080o-9b; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:28:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VvB3-00059S-Qv for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:30:17 -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 LAA04244 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:30:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VvB2-0003ow-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:30:16 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VvAs-0003nh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:30:06 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19VvAH-0003N0-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:29:29 +0100 Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] Consent Proposal To: 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, 27 Jun 2003 16:29:29 +0100 > 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". 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. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 15:10:29 2003 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 PAA12215 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:10:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XQVs-0002Hf-Sq for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:10:02 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61JA0bd008770 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:10:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XQVs-0002HC-MD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:10:00 -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 PAA12130; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:09:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XQVm-0007Cw-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:09:54 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XQVm-0007Cs-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:09:54 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XQJX-0001Yy-ME; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 14:57:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XQHf-0001Wi-Uy for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 14:55:19 -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 OAA10866 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 14:54:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XQHG-00073m-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 14:54:54 -0400 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XQHF-00073f-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 14:54:53 -0400 Received: (qmail 93793 invoked by uid 1013); 1 Jul 2003 18:54:51 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating Message-ID: <20030701205451.B74353@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> <16128.43284.257632.413036@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: <16128.43284.257632.413036@world.std.com>; from bzs@world.std.com on Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 05:18:12PM -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, 1 Jul 2003 20:54:51 +0200 On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 05:18:12PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote: > 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. Agreed ;-) However I notice in my logs (emails to non-existant users) that there are patterns, where spammers concentrate on one account. I see within a 30 second timeframe connections from about 10-50 different hosts where they try to double inject messages to one user. I have also seen similar behaviour with kinda dictionary spams where they always have 5-10 hosts in parallel work on a subset of usernames e.g. aa*@domain to ae*@domain af*@domain to al*@domain [ ... ] and a total of some 100 hosts per day. If the spammer didn't "fine tune" the process and there are 40-50 hosts in parallel it qualifies for a DDoS, IMHO. \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 Jul 1 15:10:38 2003 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 PAA12243 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:10:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XQW4-0002K0-AX for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:10:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61JACrO008918 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:10:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XQW4-0002Jh-79 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:10:12 -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 PAA12134; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:09:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XQVn-0007Cz-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:09:55 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XQVm-0007Ct-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:09:54 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XQNf-0001gP-Oc; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:01:31 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XQMe-0001dG-1L for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:00:28 -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 PAA11240 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:00:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XQMO-00078b-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:00:12 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr7.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XQMN-00078Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:00:11 -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 OXT77705; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:00:08 -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 AJW03014; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:00:08 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: Cc: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list Message-ID: <003401c34002$fe737e80$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <000b01c32fbc$b4e8f930$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> 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: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:00:09 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A new, spam-related, US Patent was issued today. It is a continuation in part of US Patent 6,192,114 which is on the first list of patents I posted to this group. See: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=3D6587550 US Patent 6,587,550 METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ENABLING A FEE TO BE CHARGED 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 Abstract A method and apparatus for determining whether a party sending an email communication is on a list of parties authorized by the intended receiving party. If the sending party is not on the list of authorized parties, an electronic billing agreement is emailed to the sending party indicating a fee that will be charged to the sending party in return for the message being provided to the intended receiving party. Preferably, the present invention is implemented with Internet communications and utilizes a security protocol to enable the electronic transaction to be transacted in a secure manner.=20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Inventors: Council; Michael O. (186 Hurt Dr., Cordele, GA 31015); Santos; Daniel J. (3525 Roswell Rd., #721, Atlanta, GA 30305) =20 Appl. No.: 783340=20 Filed: February 14, 2001=20 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 15:13:23 2003 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 PAA12698 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:13:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XQYb-0002et-TO for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:12:52 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61JCnNN010150 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:12:49 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XQYb-0002dR-N4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:12:49 -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 PAA12580; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:12:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XQYY-0007FR-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:12:46 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XQYW-0007FI-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:12:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XQWv-0002Rr-1U; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:11:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XQWa-0002MR-Ak for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:10:54 -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 PAA12239 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:10:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XQWT-0007DZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:10:37 -0400 Received: from 000-257-992.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.247.183] helo=68.27.247.183 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XQWP-0007DV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:10:34 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701151007.03240858@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Kee Hinckley From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam 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: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:10:08 -0400 At 01:19 PM 7/1/2003 -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote: >At 1:37 AM -0400 6/29/03, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >>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. > >I've been thinking about this every since Barry posted is "call every >phone" mail. And it seems to me that there is another way to look at >solving the problem. Or rather, not _solving_ the problem, but addressing it. > >How about technical solutions (and DCC is an example of this) for >detecting spam in progress. In other words. When some set of machines >start spewing millions of messages, why shouldn't there be a dynamically >early alert-system for detecting that. Perhaps even one that could be >installed on gateway machines--not just mail servers? Take a look at DShield.org and Incidents.org. This system collects firewall information from many servers worldwide. This would be a good example of what such possible system can do for spam. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 15:32:13 2003 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 PAA13819 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:32:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XQqu-0003n6-SC for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:31:44 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61JVirw014566 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:31:44 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XQqu-0003mr-Os for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:31:44 -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 PAA13800; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:31:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XQqt-0007bG-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:31:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XQqs-0007bD-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:31:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XQqD-0003bc-Ua; Tue, 01 Jul 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 19XQq7-0003ZW-PW for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:30:55 -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 PAA13635 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:30:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XQq4-0007ZQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:30:52 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XQq3-0007ZK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:30:51 -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 h61JUog3010350 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:30:50 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA29453; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:30:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16129.57705.789432.104409@world.std.com> To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030630221600.00b34f90@std5.imagineis.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030630221600.00b34f90@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: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:30:49 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At 03:35 PM 6/29/2003 -0400, Paul Judge wrote: > >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 I will point out that the hard evidence for this is lacking. I realize that people go nuts at the suggestion that the world is completely whack-o and not nice and neat as they presume. But in truth for all we know 99% of the spam is being produced by well-funded Al Qaeda operatives intent on disrupting the internet and has virtually no commercial value as described. It's not that much harder to believe than the sort of .00001% return arguments many seem comfortable with. Of course, this doesn't mean there isn't ONE or TEN spammers who operate as supposed, I just wonder if they're actually responsible for the problem. Before the howling begins let me point out that I have finally made some inroads here showing that the amplification via hijacked servers is probably much more important to the spam problem than, for example, a rational profit motive (i.e., without stolen resources there would probably be no possibility of profit.) I realize that's closely related and would tend to support a profit-motivativation of some sort but, as with organized crime, is it the profit motive (e.g., profits on stolen goods) or the crime (the low cost of stealing goods) which underlies the problem? More to the point I would assert that if we don't endeavor to nail down hard evidence and work forward from there we're in great danger of shadow-boxing with our own imaginings about how we would like to think spammers operate. I realize the urge to show progress is great and fact-gathering sounds like a frustrating impediment to some, but...how bad would it be if our efforts turned out to be foolish and disconnected from reality, research into a June bug*? * June Bug: Famous (among some) case of a psychosomatic, non-existant, insect seriously disrupting several textile factories down south. -- -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 Jul 1 15:38:18 2003 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 PAA14017 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:38:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XQwn-0004GO-4P for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:37:49 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61JbnXI016382 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:37:49 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XQwn-0004G9-13 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:37:49 -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 PAA14012; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:37:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XQwl-0007fn-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:37:47 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XQwl-0007fk-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:37:47 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XQw1-00044j-SX; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:37:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XQva-00043x-9g for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:36:34 -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 PAA14001 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:36:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XQvY-0007fI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:36:32 -0400 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XQvY-0007fF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:36:32 -0400 Received: (qmail 96512 invoked by uid 1013); 1 Jul 2003 19:36:31 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] GIEIS: you will obey. Resistance is futile. Message-ID: <20030701213631.C74353@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 markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com on Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 04:32:12PM +0000 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, 1 Jul 2003 21:36:31 +0200 This will be my first and last posting in this group on the subject "Mark McCarron" and "GIEIS". On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 04:32:12PM +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: > Why not actually join the debate on 'GIEIS' instead of posting subject > matters that have nothing to do with this group? We've initially done it over in the RIPE anti-spam list. However you decided not to discuss, not to answer questions, not to honor problems with your system brought up by others, but calling them names and that they have to have their brains examined. E.g: You claimed to manage monitoring of all mailing lists in the world with a team of 500 people. I showed you a few calculations and your answer was "I don't care". You claimed you'd got 90% positive replies to your proposal from 500 important ISPs within 24 hours. Of course you can't prove it or show only one as you have a "non disclosure". You claimed to have (co-)authored many RFCs. No search engine I have used found at least only one. You failed to name the numbers of the RFCs on request. I could at least add 20 more topics to this list. I think most of your claims are as realistic as your claim that the stone ring is a communication facility sent from a higher developed civilisation (which of course is a fake posting like all the other postings; I'm curious if the postings to this list will be called faked ones also, two years from now). Just one more: You claim your goal is to stop spam. Why don't you start with yourself being a spammer and remove the commercial advertising from the end of all your emails? \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 Jul 1 15:41:36 2003 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 PAA14106 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:41:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XQzx-0004W6-7g for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:41:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61Jf5tC017358 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:41:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XQzx-0004Vt-4V for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:41:05 -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 PAA14088; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:41:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XQzv-0007gj-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:41:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XQzv-0007gg-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:41:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XQzu-0004Si-Aa; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:41:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XQz8-0004S5-W7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:40:15 -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 PAA14068 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:40:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XQz7-0007gF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:40:13 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=mr10.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XQz6-0007gB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:40:13 -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 ACE87187; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:40:08 -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 AJW11628; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:40:06 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'Paul Judge'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam Message-ID: <003a01c34008$944f8020$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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030630221600.00b34f90@std5.imagineis.com> 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: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:40:08 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >However, on the global level how does is the consent framework relevant?=20 I don't think it is too hard to see how various consent based systems could work on a global level. Not all of the possiblities are going to be sensible, however... 1. If consent can be "expressed" in some sort of a document or data structure, that "expression of consent" can be communicated or moved from the local periphery of the system into the more global core. Thus, I, my ISP, or my organization, might prepare an "expression of consent" that states that mail will not be accepted if it exceeds certain sizes, contains certain elements (such as attachments) or is of a "commercial" nature. If this expression can be accessed by arbitrary nodes, then either sending nodes or intermediate nodes would be able to determine what had been consented to and decide whether to originate or relay any particular message. A very simple version of such a system would be created if we were to adopt something like the "donotcall.gov" system which is used to block telemarketing calls in the US. 2. If systems that rely on "licenses to send" or recipient-issued tokens are deployed, then depending on the way these things are implemented, upstream nodes would be able to inspect the licenses and determine whether or not a particular message was, in fact, authorized. Depending on implementation choices, non-authorized messages could be either discarded, subjected to more or greater "spam-detection" inspections, or routed at lower quality of service. Consent based systems can have value on a "global" non-local basic even though they express the consent of "local" systems or users. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 15:42:31 2003 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 PAA14173 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:42:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XR0s-0004f3-Oa for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:42:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61Jg2CP017912 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:42:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XR0s-0004ep-Kj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:42:02 -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 PAA14154; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:42:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XR0r-0007hV-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:42:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XR0q-0007hS-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:42:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XR0r-0004bf-9k; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:42:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XR0g-0004b6-UD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:41:50 -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 PAA14129 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:41:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XR0f-0007hI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:41:49 -0400 Received: from mxsmta01.inithost.com ([209.235.30.103] helo=mxsmta01.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XR0e-0007hF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:41:48 -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 <20030701194338.TOWW6624.mxsmta01.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:43:38 -0400 Message-ID: <3F01E3DD.6060702@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: Barry Shein CC: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030630221600.00b34f90@std5.imagineis.com> <16129.57705.789432.104409@world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <16129.57705.789432.104409@world.std.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: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:41:17 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Darn! Being an old timer I thought everything ended up with Nazis. I am disappointed to find that all the spam is the work of Al Qaeda operatives. I guess my theory of a Nazi conspiracy was totally wrong. Thanks for update Barry. Chuck Wegrzyn Barry Shein wrote: > At 03:35 PM 6/29/2003 -0400, Paul Judge wrote: > > >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 >I will point out that the hard evidence for this is lacking. > >I realize that people go nuts at the suggestion that the world is >completely whack-o and not nice and neat as they presume. > >But in truth for all we know 99% of the spam is being produced by >well-funded Al Qaeda operatives intent on disrupting the internet and >has virtually no commercial value as described. > >It's not that much harder to believe than the sort of .00001% return >arguments many seem comfortable with. Of course, this doesn't mean >there isn't ONE or TEN spammers who operate as supposed, I just wonder >if they're actually responsible for the problem. > >Before the howling begins let me point out that I have finally made >some inroads here showing that the amplification via hijacked servers >is probably much more important to the spam problem than, for example, >a rational profit motive (i.e., without stolen resources there would >probably be no possibility of profit.) > >I realize that's closely related and would tend to support a >profit-motivativation of some sort but, as with organized crime, is it >the profit motive (e.g., profits on stolen goods) or the crime (the >low cost of stealing goods) which underlies the problem? > >More to the point I would assert that if we don't endeavor to nail >down hard evidence and work forward from there we're in great danger >of shadow-boxing with our own imaginings about how we would like to >think spammers operate. > >I realize the urge to show progress is great and fact-gathering sounds >like a frustrating impediment to some, but...how bad would it be if >our efforts turned out to be foolish and disconnected from reality, >research into a June bug*? > > >* June Bug: Famous (among some) case of a psychosomatic, non-existant, >insect seriously disrupting several textile factories down south. > > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 15:46:33 2003 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 PAA14338 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:46:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XR4n-0004sw-2r for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:46:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61Jk5QS018774 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:46:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XR4n-0004sj-08 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:46:05 -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 PAA14310; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:46:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XR4l-0007mP-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:46:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XR4k-0007mM-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:46:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XR4i-0004pg-Ow; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:46:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XR42-0004p5-8n for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:45:18 -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 PAA14299 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:45:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XR40-0007ly-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:45:16 -0400 Received: from 000-257-992.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.247.183] helo=68.27.247.183 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XR3y-0007lr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:45:15 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701154055.00b523a0@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: <003401c34002$fe737e80$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> References: <000b01c32fbc$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: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:42:40 -0400 Does this seems to cover all kinds of e-stamp systems? Also, who is this assigned to? At 03:00 PM 7/1/2003 -0400, Bob Wyman wrote: >A new, spam-related, US Patent was issued today. It is a continuation in >part of US Patent 6,192,114 which is on the first list of patents I >posted to this group. > >See: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6587550 > >US Patent 6,587,550 >METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ENABLING A FEE TO BE CHARGED 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 > >Abstract >A method and apparatus for determining whether a party sending an email >communication is on a list of parties authorized by the intended >receiving party. If the sending party is not on the list of authorized >parties, an electronic billing agreement is emailed to the sending party >indicating a fee that will be charged to the sending party in return for >the message being provided to the intended receiving party. Preferably, >the present invention is implemented with Internet communications and >utilizes a security protocol to enable the electronic transaction to be >transacted in a secure manner. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >-------- >Inventors: Council; Michael O. (186 Hurt Dr., Cordele, GA 31015); >Santos; Daniel J. (3525 Roswell Rd., #721, Atlanta, GA 30305) >Appl. No.: 783340 >Filed: February 14, 2001 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 15:52:34 2003 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 PAA14447 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:52:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XRAc-00051h-Dt for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:52:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61Jq6pR019319 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:52:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XRAc-00051W-9M for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:52:06 -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 PAA14442; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:52:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XRAa-00002n-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:52:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XRAa-00002k-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:52:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XRAW-0004zU-VD; Tue, 01 Jul 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 19XRAR-0004zG-GE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:51:55 -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 PAA14438 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:51:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XRAQ-00002f-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:51:54 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=mr10.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XRAP-00002b-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:51:53 -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 ACE88573; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:51:47 -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 AJW14235; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:51:46 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list Message-ID: <003b01c3400a$34edb4b0$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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701154055.00b523a0@std5.imagineis.com> 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: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:51:47 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yakov Shafranovich wrote: Re: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=3D6587550 >Does this seems to cover all kinds of e-stamp systems?=20 It certainly seems to cover some of them. Nonetheless, I'm sure you appreciate that it is very hard to make flat statements about what is covered by any particular patent. >Also, who is this assigned to? This patent does not seem to have been assigned to anyone. Under US law, an assignment is not required. Also there are a number of forms of licensing which can result in transfer of effective rights without an actual assignment occurring. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 16:02:34 2003 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 QAA14740 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:02:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XRKI-0005Hh-Fi for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:02:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61K26Hx020308 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:02:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XRKI-0005HT-Ba for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:02:06 -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 QAA14725; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:02:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XRKG-00008r-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:02:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XRKG-00008n-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:02:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XRKD-0005ES-IT; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:02:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XRJY-0005E9-Qo for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:01:20 -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 QAA14701 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:01:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XRJX-00008W-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:01:19 -0400 Received: from 000-257-992.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.247.183] helo=68.27.247.183 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XRJV-00008S-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:01:18 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701155958.00ba34d0@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: <003b01c3400a$34edb4b0$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701154055.00b523a0@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: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:00:58 -0400 At 03:51 PM 7/1/2003 -0400, Bob Wyman wrote: >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >Re: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6587550 > >Does this seems to cover all kinds of e-stamp systems? > It certainly seems to cover some of them. Nonetheless, I'm sure >you appreciate that it is very hard to make flat statements about what >is covered by any particular patent. It seems to at least cover systems where the receiver wants the sender to pay before the email goes through. I vaguely remember one commercial system like that. Also, what about patent # 5,999,967? It seems to cover generic e-stamps? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 16:08:34 2003 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 QAA14936 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:08:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XRQ6-0005lg-3e for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:08:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61K86jW022166 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:08:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XRQ5-0005lR-Vx for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:08:06 -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 QAA14917; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:08:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XRQ4-0000DO-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:08:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XRQ3-0000DL-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:08:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XRQ0-0005jK-Je; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:08:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XRPG-0005UB-TR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:07:14 -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 QAA14853 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:07:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XRPF-0000CH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:07:13 -0400 Received: from 000-257-992.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.247.183] helo=68.27.247.183 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XRPD-0000CC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:07:12 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701160637.00b51e38@solidmatrix.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 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, 01 Jul 2003 16:06:53 -0400 At 03:51 PM 7/1/2003 -0400, Bob Wyman wrote: >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >Re: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6587550 > >Does this seems to cover all kinds of e-stamp systems? > It certainly seems to cover some of them. Nonetheless, I'm sure >you appreciate that it is very hard to make flat statements about what >is covered by any particular patent. It seems to at least cover systems where the receiver wants the sender to pay before the email goes through. I vaguely remember one commercial system like that. Also, what about patent # 5,999,967? It seems to cover generic e-stamps? Also, patent # 6,192,114 by the same person which is assigned to CBT Partners. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 16:14:34 2003 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 QAA15063 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:14:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XRVv-0005zE-3D for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:14:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61KE7mE023006 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:14:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XRVu-0005yz-VM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:14:06 -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 QAA15029; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:14:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XRVt-0000Iv-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:14:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XRVs-0000Is-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:14:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XRVp-0005uh-MZ; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:14:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XRVi-0005tj-Dk for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:13:54 -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 QAA15018 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:13:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XRVg-0000IS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:13:52 -0400 Received: from 000-257-992.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.247.183] helo=68.27.247.183 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XRVe-0000IN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:13:51 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701161327.00bd2df8@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] 2a. Spam Measurement - SenderBase.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, 01 Jul 2003 16:13:28 -0400 I recently ran across this website, www.senderbase.com, operated by IronPort who also operate www.BondedSender.com. This site, SenderBase, seems to be a collection of spam statistics split up by domain/IP,etc. It might come in pretty useful although I cannot figure out what their sources are. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 16:41:19 2003 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 QAA15697 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:41:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XRvn-0006tm-BM for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:40:52 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61Kepfr026513 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:40:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XRvn-0006tY-8R for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:40:51 -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 QAA15677; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:40:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XRvl-0000Uv-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:40:49 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XRvk-0000Us-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:40:48 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XRu1-0006mc-96; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:39:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XRu0-0006mJ-7S for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:39:00 -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 QAA15618 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:38:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XRty-0000UJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:38:58 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr7.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XRtx-0000UG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:38:57 -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 OXT89818; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:38:56 -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 AJW24592; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:38:54 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: Cc: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list Message-ID: <003c01c34010$cadfb9e0$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <000b01c32fbc$b4e8f930$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> 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: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:38:56 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here's a patent that I missed in earlier listings. It covers white lists, etc. as well as parental controls (i.e. lists of allowed correspondents). See: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=3D6393464 United States Patent 6,393,464 =20 Dieterman May 21, 2002 =20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Method for controlling the delivery of electronic mail messages=20 Abstract The present disclosure discloses a method for controlling the delivery of electronic mail. The method comprises the steps of: creating an allowed list of electronic addresses with which the user is permitted to freely exchange messages; categorizing as authorized each message that is sent to or received from an entity whose address is included on the list; categorizing as unauthorized each message that is sent to or received from an entity whose electronic address is not included in the list; transmitting authorized outgoing messages to their intended recipients; allowing the user to access the contents of authorized received messages. Also disclosed is a method for allowing an administrator to selectively approve messages which are sent to or received from entities whose electronic addresses do not appear on the allowed list.=20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Inventors: Dieterman; Jude Gerard (Naperville, IL) =20 Assignee: Unbound Communications, Inc. (Wheeling, IL) =20 Appl. No.: 309219=20 Filed: June 10, 1999=20 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 17:14:21 2003 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 RAA16611 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:14:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSRl-00084c-Lz for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:13:54 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61LDre7031031 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:13:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSRl-00084Q-IB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:13:53 -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 RAA16606; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:13:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSPw-00080u-RQ; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:12:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSPd-00080i-G8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:11:41 -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 RAA16586 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:11:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XSPa-0000kv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:11:38 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XSPZ-0000ks-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:11:37 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:50:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:38:05 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Paul Judge , "'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: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:38:00 -0400 > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 10:25 PM > > > > > 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? I think your next question at the bottom is closely related, so I will elaborate there. > > >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? On the global level, in addition to the goal of reducing the amount of spam that is received, the goal is to reduce the amount of spam that is sent. The consent framework on a local level affects the amount of spam that is received; however, in many cases, we must have an inter-network solution to affect the ability to send spam. The types of solutions that can affect the ability to send spam according to the taxonomy include: 1) spam prevention systems including spam protection systems (transaction-level C/R, greylisting, consent tokens) and spam deterrence systems; 2) spam detection systems that operate at the network-level or within the SMTP protocol (i.e. blacklists and various DNS lookup systems); and 3) spam responses that limit the ability to send traffic in the future (i.e. rate limiting systems). > Are we talking about different hosts or networks on the > Internet expressing > combined consent of their users to each other? In addition to the approaches mentioned above, there is the opportunity to provide spam detection closer to the source. > "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 problem with spam detection closer to the source is that you are making a decision for all the downstream receivers. Currently, due to the blunt 'spam vs. non-spam' classification used by many anti-spam systems, it is risky to make that decision for multiple organzations. The move towards a more granular expression of desired and undesired communications allows perhaps a logic or language to be built that will allow a more precise policy enforcement even on an inter-network level. This would allow the common rules to be implemented as close to the source as possible. > Or are we simply talking > about various systems that collect data to be used on the > local level? In all of this, there are, of course ,various systems performing different tasks. Information exchange between these systems is very important not only for the coordination of this system, but to share relevant information based on the other systems view of the world. For example, we have seen: 1) the C/R internetworking proposal that looks at coordination between systems and 2)information sharing in systems such as blacklists, DCC, and razor. There are other coordination systems to consider as well as more advanced information sharing approaches such as reputation systems. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 17:15:02 2003 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 RAA16658 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:15:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSSP-000889-9n for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:14:34 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61LEXNi031247 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:14:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSSP-00087u-6q for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:14:33 -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 RAA16630; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:14:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSRt-00084q-GO; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:14:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSR1-00081Z-62 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 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 RAA16597 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:13:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XSQy-0000l3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:13:04 -0400 Received: from 000-257-992.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.247.183] helo=68.27.247.183 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XSQw-0000l0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:13:03 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701171219.00bcda88@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: <003c01c34010$cadfb9e0$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> References: <000b01c32fbc$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: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:12:40 -0400 This also seems to affect consent systems on the local level. At 04:38 PM 7/1/2003 -0400, Bob Wyman wrote: >Here's a patent that I missed in earlier listings. It covers white >lists, etc. as well as parental controls (i.e. lists of allowed >correspondents). > >See: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6393464 >United States Patent 6,393,464 >Dieterman May 21, 2002 > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >-------- >Method for controlling the delivery of electronic mail messages > >Abstract >The present disclosure discloses a method for controlling the delivery >of electronic mail. The method comprises the steps of: creating an >allowed list of electronic addresses with which the user is permitted to >freely exchange messages; categorizing as authorized each message that >is sent to or received from an entity whose address is included on the >list; categorizing as unauthorized each message that is sent to or >received from an entity whose electronic address is not included in the >list; transmitting authorized outgoing messages to their intended >recipients; allowing the user to access the contents of authorized >received messages. Also disclosed is a method for allowing an >administrator to selectively approve messages which are sent to or >received from entities whose electronic addresses do not appear on the >allowed list. > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >-------- >Inventors: Dieterman; Jude Gerard (Naperville, IL) >Assignee: Unbound Communications, Inc. (Wheeling, IL) >Appl. No.: 309219 >Filed: June 10, 1999 > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jul 1 17:19:32 2003 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 RAA16810 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:19:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSWn-00009Y-6N for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:19:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61LJ5ge000584 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:19:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSWm-00009B-Sn for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:19:04 -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 RAA16801; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:19:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XSWk-0000p3-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:19:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XSWj-0000p0-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:19:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSWk-000066-5R; Tue, 01 Jul 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 19XSWA-0008VW-GY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 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 RAA16782 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:18:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XSW8-0000ox-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:18:24 -0400 Received: from 000-257-992.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.247.183] helo=68.27.247.183 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XSW5-0000ou-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:18:22 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701171757.00bc0038@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Olson, Margaret" , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2a. Spam Measurement - SenderBase.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: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:17:58 -0400 Thank you for pointing this out. At 05:13 PM 7/1/2003 -0400, Olson, Margaret wrote: > From their help page: > > >How do you estimate email volumes? >In general, we use a "sampling" approach, similar to the method a company >like Nielsen might use for their TV ratings. We receive data feeds from >over 6,000 domains (mostly from small to mid-size ISP's, universities and >companies) participating in Bonded Sender about how much incoming email >traffic they get. We then parse this data by sending domain and IP address >and scale up our estimates based on our estimate of the % of email volume >that participating email receivers represent as a % of total email volume. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Yakov Shafranovich >[mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] >Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 4:13 PM >To: asrg@ietf.org >Subject: [Asrg] 2a. Spam Measurement - SenderBase.com > >I recently ran across this website, www.senderbase.com, operated by >IronPort who also operate www.BondedSender.com. This site, SenderBase, >seems to be a collection of spam statistics split up by domain/IP,etc. It >might come in pretty useful although I cannot figure out what their sources >are. > >Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 17:22:33 2003 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 RAA16865 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:22:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSZf-0000Ij-MJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:22:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61LM3BY001139 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:22:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSZf-0000II-IF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:22:03 -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 RAA16860; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:21:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XSZd-0000qI-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:22:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XSZc-0000qF-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:22:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSZd-0000Ew-9h; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:22:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSZI-0000Ee-C6 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:21:40 -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 RAA16857 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:21:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XSZG-0000qA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:21:38 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XSZF-0000q7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:21:37 -0400 Received: from [63.183.112.40] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2503262; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:21:39 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <002901c33fea$f3b8d660$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> References: <002901c33fea$f3b8d660$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> To: From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] News Article - FTC's do-not-call registry email blocked by Yahoo Cc: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , 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, 1 Jul 2003 17:15:25 -0400 At 12:08 PM -0400 7/1/03, Bob Wyman wrote: >Kee Hinckley wrote: >> 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. > This just isn't right. The FTC mails were not spam and they >should not have been blocked. The burden for ensuring that non-spam >messages pass through the email system should be on those who block >messages, not on those who send them. In an ideal world, yes. But if it were an ideal world, we wouldn't be here. So they should have taken that into account. *Especially* when you know you are going to be sending high-volume, substantially similar, mis-formatted email messages. -- 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 Tue Jul 1 17:27:41 2003 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 RAA16959 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:27:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSed-0000Vx-D2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:27:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61LRBF0001971 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:27:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSed-0000Vi-7I for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:27:11 -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 RAA16951; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:27:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XSea-0000sM-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:27:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XSea-0000sJ-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:27:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSeT-0000PP-01; Tue, 01 Jul 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 19XSe0-0000Og-Hc for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:26:32 -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 RAA16933 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:26:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XSdy-0000rf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:26:30 -0400 Received: from 000-257-992.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.247.183] helo=68.27.247.183 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XSdv-0000rU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:26:28 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701172458.00bd1de0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Danny Angus" , From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal Cc: "Paul Hammant" In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030630142516.00b9f118@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: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:26:02 -0400 At 12:09 PM 7/1/2003 +0100, Danny Angus wrote: > > 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? > >Thats a very good question, I can see a two tier system developing with >trusted transport being used where it is available and much less credence >being given to mail arriving through the older mechanisms. > >I'd like to think that a trust system could be added to ESMTP as a new >verb and MTA's could take appropriate action, therfore as the new verb >spreads in use more MTA's would begin to reject mail not sent using it. >[..] This is similar to the system proposed by Walter Dnes a short time ago. HOWEVER, one specific question is what determines "trust" in a "trust system". Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 17:31:31 2003 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 RAA17060 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:31:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSiO-0000dg-LW for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:31:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61LV41x002450 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:31:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSiO-0000dR-Gg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:31:04 -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 RAA17030; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:31:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XSiL-0000vo-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:31:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XSiL-0000vl-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:31:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSiL-0000bU-Qj; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:31:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSiA-0000bA-T1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:30:50 -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 RAA17027 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:30:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XSi8-0000vi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:30:48 -0400 Received: from 000-257-992.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.247.183] helo=68.27.247.183 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XSi6-0000vf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:30:47 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701172808.00bcda88@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] Two ways to look at spam In-Reply-To: <16129.57705.789432.104409@world.std.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030630221600.00b34f90@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030630221600.00b34f90@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: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:30:17 -0400 At 03:30 PM 7/1/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: > At 03:35 PM 6/29/2003 -0400, Paul Judge wrote: > > >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 >I will point out that the hard evidence for this is lacking. > >[..] >More to the point I would assert that if we don't endeavor to nail >down hard evidence and work forward from there we're in great danger >of shadow-boxing with our own imaginings about how we would like to >think spammers operate. > >I realize the urge to show progress is great and fact-gathering sounds >like a frustrating impediment to some, but...how bad would it be if >our efforts turned out to be foolish and disconnected from reality, >research into a June bug*? Great, what kind of evidence or things should we be looking for? From (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg-work-items.txt): ---snip--- 2.a. Spam Measurements. This works needs to be focused on immediately. This data will help us understand the current weaknesses in the system and where efforts should be focused. Requirements need to be set and then we have to gather the data. I see two separate paths here: One is based on user survey input. Ted Gavin has volunteered to conduct this. The other data is based on real spam measurements. Once the requirements are gathered, Brightmail, CipherTrust, CloudMark and MessageLabs have each volunteered to contribute information. Any other volunteers? ---snip-- As you can see Brightmail, CipherTrust and a bunch of others agreed to provide data. All we need is to define what we are looking for. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 17:40:41 2003 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 RAA17253 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:40:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSrG-000173-Kf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:40:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61LeEi7004271 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:40:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSrG-00016o-FH for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:40:14 -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 RAA17236; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:40:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XSrD-000106-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:40:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XSrD-000103-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:40:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSr3-00013U-K4; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:40:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSqR-00012k-6R for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:39:23 -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 RAA17225 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:39:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XSqO-0000zf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:39:20 -0400 Received: from 000-257-992.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.247.183] helo=68.27.247.183 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XSqM-0000za-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:39:19 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701173757.00bd33c0@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] Disposable short-term E-mail addresses 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: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:38:50 -0400 At 03:06 AM 7/1/2003 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: >Here's an interesting approach. > >A company is offering free "disposable" E-mail addresses... but unlike >Yahoo/Hotmail/etc, these are short-duration E-mail addresses that >self-destruct >after a short time (1-8 days). > >You give them your "real" E-mail address (which they promise not to sell...?) >and how long you want it to last, and they generate a "disposable" E-mail >address which will forward to your real one for the indicated lifespan. > >The obvious use is when you "need" to give your E-mail address to some >Website >or something for them to send something to you (say, a login password or >confirmation code or something) but where you maybe don't trust them to not >abuse that E-mail address in the future. >[..] Interesting concepts but two thoughts come up: what do they do about privacy and what happens when addresses are reused? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 17:49:39 2003 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 RAA17444 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:49:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSzx-0001Mg-6U for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:49:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61LnD52005241 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:49:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSzw-0001MS-WA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:49:13 -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 RAA17430; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:49:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XSzu-00017R-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:49:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XSzt-00017O-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:49:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSzl-0001J9-Gg; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:49:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XSzD-0001Ia-LX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:48:27 -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 RAA17424 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:48:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XSzB-000174-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:48:25 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr7.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XSzA-000170-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:48:24 -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 OXT98465; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:48:17 -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 AJW38698; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:48:15 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Kee Hinckley'" , "'Barry Shein'" Cc: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Message-ID: <004301c3401a$7b548590$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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Asrg] Warning people of "intent to send" large quantities 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: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:48:17 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It has been suggested that folk like the FTC should "talk with spam filtering companies" prior to sending out large quantities of mail -- even if that mail is unquestionably "non-spam." This is easy to say. However, it isn't obvious to me who these "spam filter companies" are. If I was going to send out a few hundred thousand legitimate messages sometime next week, who would I warn? How would I contact them? It seems to me that if we have a system that relies on people talking with each other, then we need to put in place some mechanism so that they can find each other to begin the discussions.=20 * Should we have a mailing list to which people can send notices of "intent to send" large quantities of mail? * If you are warning someone, what form should the warning take? Should it include a sample message? Should it include the headers that you will be sending? Should it include information on the number of messages that you'll send? How about providing information concerning the time of day that the message will be sent? * Is there a place for standards on how such warnings should be issued? If so, who should draft and promulgate such a standard? * Should there be third-party "judges" established that will have the time, patience and skills to determine whether planned email blasts are legitimate? If so, who should these judges be? bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 17:52:33 2003 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 RAA17513 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:52:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XT2l-0001Vr-4B for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:52:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61Lq7da005809 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 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 19XT2k-0001Vc-Ux for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:52:06 -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 RAA17506; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:52:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XT2i-00019C-00; Tue, 01 Jul 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 19XT2h-000199-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:52:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XT2e-0001SN-Q3; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:52:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XT29-0001Ry-Se for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:51:29 -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 RAA17474 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:51:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XT27-00018U-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:51:27 -0400 Received: from tarbolton.demon.co.uk ([212.229.119.215] helo=killerbees.co.uk) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XT26-00018P-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:51:26 -0400 Received: from mailtest ([192.168.0.2]) by killerbees.co.uk (JAMES SMTP Server 3.0a1) with SMTP ID 27; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 22:06:43 +0100 (BST) From: "Danny Angus" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Consent Proposal Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701172458.00bd1de0@std5.imagineis.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 1 Jul 2003 22:54:46 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 WWFrb3YNCg0KPiBUaGlzIGlzIHNpbWlsYXIgdG8gdGhlIHN5c3RlbSBwcm9wb3NlZCBieSBXYWx0 ZXIgRG5lcyBhIHNob3J0IHRpbWUgYWdvLiANCj4gSE9XRVZFUiwgb25lIHNwZWNpZmljIHF1ZXN0 aW9uIGlzIHdoYXQgZGV0ZXJtaW5lcyAidHJ1c3QiIGluIGEgDQo+ICJ0cnVzdCBzeXN0ZW0iLg0K DQpXZSBjYW4gbG9vayBvdXRzaWRlIHRoZSBkb21haW4gb2YgbWFpbCB0byBmaW5kIHdvcmthYmxl IGV4YW1wbGVzIG9mIHRydXN0LCBQR1AgYW5kIFNTTCBib3RoIG1ha2UgcHJvdmlzaW9uIGZvciB0 aGUgaW5jbHVzaW9uIG9mIG91dC1vZi1jaGFubmVsIHRydXN0IHZlcmlmaWNhdGlvbi4gSSBzdXBw b3NlIGluIHRoaXMgc2l0dWF0aW9uIGl0IGlzIHdob20geW91IGNob29zZSB0byBpbmhlcml0IHRy dXN0IGZyb20sIGFuZCB1bHRpbWF0ZWx5IHlvdXIgdHJ1c3RlZCByb290IHRydXN0IHByb3ZpZGVy cy4NCg0KZC4= _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 18:02:38 2003 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 SAA17858 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 18:02:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XTCW-0001iP-Bf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 18:02:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61M2C8R006589 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 18:02:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XTCW-0001iC-3Z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 18:02:12 -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 SAA17826; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 18:02:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XTCT-0001Gf-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 18:02:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XTCS-0001Gc-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 18:02:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XTCK-0001f4-OI; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 18:02:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XTC2-0001ed-2W for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 18:01:42 -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 SAA17814 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 18:01:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XTBz-0001GF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 18:01:39 -0400 Received: from 000-257-992.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.247.183] helo=68.27.247.183 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XTBt-0001G7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 18:01:36 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701175835.00ba9ad0@std5.imagineis.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] Two ways to look at spam In-Reply-To: <003a01c34008$944f8020$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030630221600.00b34f90@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: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 18:01:07 -0400 At 03:40 PM 7/1/2003 -0400, Bob Wyman wrote: >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >However, on the global level how does is the consent framework >relevant? > I don't think it is too hard to see how various consent based >systems could work on a global level. Not all of the possiblities are >going to be sensible, however... > > 1. If consent can be "expressed" in some sort of a document or >data structure, that "expression of consent" can be communicated or >moved from the local periphery of the system into the more global core. >[..] Would XrML - eXtensible rights Markup Language (http://www.xrml.org) or OASIS Rights Language (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=rights) be a suitable language for consent? Or perhaps modeling a system based on the way consent is handled in IMPP/XMPP protocols? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 19:01:40 2003 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 TAA20028 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:01:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XU7e-0003Db-7g for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:01:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61N1ElU012372 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:01:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XU7d-0003DT-LJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:01:13 -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 TAA20012; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:01:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XU7a-0001uR-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:01:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XU7Z-0001uO-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:01:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XU7S-0003BL-US; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:01:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XU6a-0003A3-Ky for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:00:08 -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 TAA19962 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:00:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XU6X-0001sv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:00:05 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=mr10.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XU6W-0001ss-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:00:04 -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 ACF10438; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 18:57:58 -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 AJW51032; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 18:57:55 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'Paul Judge'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam Message-ID: <004401c34024$36a30700$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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701175835.00ba9ad0@std5.imagineis.com> 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: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 18:57:57 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Would XrML - eXtensible rights Markup Language=20 > (http://www.xrml.org) or OASIS Rights Language be=20 > a suitable language for consent? Once you get past all the obvious and boring objections to the use of XML for something like this, "Yes" these methods would serve as a good base. There isn't anything special about granting someone rights to send you mail. You just need to be able to identify what rights can be granted, what terms and conditions are relevant to the grants, etc. Then, create the extensions to something like XrML and you're done. At that point, you've got to deal with more mundane issues... Like: what do you do with grants once you've got them? How do you distribute them? Do you embed them in messages? Do you allow creation of tokens or proxies as "small" versions of the larger documents? Etc... Note: I'm somewhat predjudiced in this matter since if you inspect the ContentGuard patents which appear to be the source of XrML, you'll see that they refer to some of my own patents as prior-art. The concept of creating a "language" for licensing is something that motivated the work I did on licensing while with Digital back in the 80's. The claims that this idea was "invented" at Xerox PARC are just silliness... bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 19:10:31 2003 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 TAA20214 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:10:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XUGE-0003t9-BR for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:10:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61NA6Uj014942 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:10:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XUGE-0003sv-8P for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:10:06 -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 TAA20202; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:10:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XUGA-00020f-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:10:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XUGA-00020c-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:10:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XUGA-0003me-4s; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:10:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XUFr-0003lz-0p for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:09:43 -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 TAA20191 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:09:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XUFn-00020G-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:09:39 -0400 Received: from bay8-f5.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.5] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XUFn-0001zs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:09:39 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:09:09 -0700 Received: from 213.104.228.22 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 23:09:09 GMT X-Originating-IP: [213.104.228.22] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] A Little Background on 'GIEIS' And A Few Surprises Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jul 2003 23:09:09.0212 (UTC) FILETIME=[C6F071C0:01C34025] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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 23:09:09 +0000 A Little Background on 'GIEIS' And A Few Surprises - Global ISP Email Identity System 'GIEIS' or the 'Global ISP Email Identity System' was developed in response to Bill Gate's open letter regarding spam. By combining the frameworks of consent expression, both fail-open and fail-closed policy enforcement, and source tracking, 'GIEIS' would effectively eliminate all Internet spam, virus', worms, trojans, hoax emails, and any form of fraudulent emails. Further considerations also spurred the design of 'GIEIS': 1. Protection of children from pornographic material in their email. 2. Loss of business due to lack of trust of Internet companies. 3. The spread of child pornography through Usenet and other Newsgroups. 4. The loss of Internet subscribers. 5. The spread of virus', trojans. and worms. 6. Protection of people from fraudulent emails such as those requesting account details, or destroying a companies reputation. The main reasoning behind designing 'GIEIS' was simply the protection of children. We had to design a system that would both allow legitimate email and uncensored access to services yet provide complete protection for children. 'GIEIS' allows for this by the sheer nature of it architecture. Every email can be traced instantly back to account level. From here, its a simple process of checking telephone records. For those who think they are a little more clever and decide to use some form of proxy chain be it socks or anonymous proxy, 'GIEIS' has a little surprise for you. 'GIEIS' will scan the Internet 24 hours a day for open ports, test them and catalogue them. 'GIEIS' will offer a plug-in script for any web based email's authentication process. This script will compare the IP address of the connecting machine against its database of ports that are open. Any match will result in being denied access and the account will be flagged. If further access attempts are made from a false address, an email is sent to the account to inform the owner that someone was attempting to access the account and will list information of the access attempt. This email will only be sent once to prevent flooding attempts. The email provider will be informed and they are left to make their own decisions. Additional information can be retrived via an automated bot mailer system. Just send an email to 'GIEIS' with the subject GIEIS REPORT and 'GIEIS' will return all information it has on that particular account. In my view, spam is not an 'email only' issue. It has become a problem that I think should be difined as 'bot spam'. That is, those litte programs that invade our chat rooms and instant messengers offering us any number of lovely sites (note the sarcasm). This is the most disturbing aspect as far as children on the internet are concerned. 'GIEIS' would eliminate these bots by monitoring chat server connection rates and flagging suspisous connections. The system would then use heuristics to analyse the content of the texts. If any triggers are tripped the system will make a direct connection to the chat window. It will identify itself and state a simple question to validate that you are human. If the response fails the session is discontinued for that user, if it passes the 'human test' then it is allowed to continue its session and heuristics stops. It will be possible to trigger 'human tests' more than once, this will prevent companies from hiring a small number of people to pass the tests and then send large volumes of 'bot spam'. The questions you really have to ask yourself are these: Do you want uncensored access to the Internet Services? Do you want your children protected when they go online? Do you want to be able to give out your email address without fear of spam? Do you want to see the end to virus', worms, and trojans? Do you want to see programs like ICQ bot free? Do you want better throughput on your connections? Do you want to see the end to child pronography in Usenet and other newgroups? Do you want spam out of newsgroups? If your answer is yes, then 'GIEIS' is what you have been waiting for. I am asking that you assist in any manner that you can from drafting guidelins to help update the SMTP protocol to GSMTP. 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 Tue Jul 1 19:13:36 2003 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 TAA20299 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:13:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XUJ8-00044V-QC for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:13:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61ND6l1015645 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:13:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XUJ8-00044G-N0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:13:06 -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 TAA20295; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:13:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XUJ7-00022R-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:13:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XUJ6-00022O-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:13:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XUJ1-0003vJ-Cj; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:12:59 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XUI7-0003uM-Ai for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:12:03 -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 TAA20269 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:11:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XUI3-00021b-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:12:00 -0400 Received: from dgesmtp02.wcom.com ([199.249.16.17]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XUI2-00021E-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:11:58 -0400 Received: from dgismtp02.wcomnet.com ([166.38.58.142]) by firewall.wcom.com (Iplanet MTA 5.2) with ESMTP id <0HHD0026CCAXJ6@firewall.wcom.com> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 23:08:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from dgismtp02.wcomnet.com by dgismtp02.wcomnet.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.7 (built May 7 2002)) with SMTP id <0HHD00A01CAX2P@dgismtp02.wcomnet.com> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 23:08:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from cpda6728 ([166.56.64.75]) by dgismtp02.wcomnet.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.7 (built May 7 2002)) with SMTP id <0HHD0089QCAW9L@dgismtp02.wcomnet.com> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 23:08:57 +0000 (GMT) From: John Kurrle To: asrg@ietf.org Reply-to: John.Kurrle@mci.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] A slightly unusual 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: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:05:44 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I realize this is a rather unusual and perhaps impractical idea, but I would like to suggest something. While the FTC has a new "do not call" list set up at http://www.donotcall.gov/ , why can't we set up something similar? Set up a "don't spam me" web site. The person puts in their email address, and the site uses some sort of scripting (PHP, java, CGI, etc.) to then hit all the major spammers' OptOut mechanisms. Most of the spam I get has some sort of "Opt Out" link or instructions on it somewhere. They do seem to honor it, for the most part. Case in point, I was getting in excess of 60 spam emails a day last week on my yahoo account. I started clicking on all the opt-out links and sending remove/unsubscribe emails, according to their instructions. Now, almost a week later, I've gotten less than 10 a day, and that number keeps shrinking. By setting up a super "opt-out" site, you could possibly reduce the transmissions of spam, simply by having your users opt out at one site. Alternately, a network admin could opt their user out as they set up the user's email account. Is it a "magic bullet"? Obviously not. The site would have to be constantly maintained to keep opt-outs updated. Users would likely have to visit the site periodically to opt out on spam, once their inbox started filling up again. Distinctions would have to be made between spam and newsletters. Perhaps spam would need to be seperated into categories (pornographic, get rich quick, mortgage/credit, medical, etc.) with an option to opt out only from certain categories. There are certainly other aspects to consider as well. I guess what I'm looking at is that users can filter spam, but it doesn't stop the spam from coming in the first place. Using a super opt-out site would allow the users to not have the mail sent to them in the first place. Granted, there will always be spammers that won't play well with this, but the bulk of spammers do seem to provide and abide by their opt-out procedures. A super opt-out web site might provide temporary relief, until something better can be implemented. Again, perhaps it is impractical, but it still might be worth considering... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 19:55:35 2003 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 TAA21339 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:55:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XUxo-0005ch-44 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:55:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61Nt8H4021609 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:55:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XUxn-0005cS-Vg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 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 TAA21317; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:55:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XUxm-0002Yn-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:55:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XUxl-0002Yk-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:55:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XUxi-0005aM-2u; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:55:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XUxD-0005ZC-JD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:54:31 -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 TAA21297 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:54:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XUxB-0002Xy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:54:29 -0400 Received: from bay8-f103.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.103] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XUxB-0002XP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:54:29 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:53:59 -0700 Received: from 213.104.228.122 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 23:53:58 GMT X-Originating-IP: [213.104.228.122] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - Website Updated with Deatiled Proposal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jul 2003 23:53:59.0012 (UTC) FILETIME=[0A2F5A40:01C3402C] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id TAA21298 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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 23:53:58 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The 'GIEIS' proposal is now posted to the website: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis It was suggested by Mally that I begin keeping a version number so that t= he=20 releases are more clearly marked. I would like to thank all of those who= =20 have been giving their input, especially to those offlist, the response h= as=20 been unbelievable. This accouncement then refers to: Version 0.002 - Updated 1st July 2003 GIEIS - Global ISP Email Identity System - The Ultimate Anti-Spam System a.k.a. - The Digital Reaper =A9 Including intellectual copyright, Mark McCarron 2003, All rights rese= rved. Mark McCarron. _________________________________________________________________ Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends=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 Tue Jul 1 19:58:38 2003 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 TAA21531 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:58:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XV0h-00063T-Ss for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:58:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61Nw7EG023269 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:58:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XV0h-00063E-Pd for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:58:07 -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 TAA21490; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:58:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XV0f-0002dq-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:58:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XV0f-0002dn-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:58:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XV0d-00060B-96; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:58:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XV0W-0005zS-Vs for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:57:57 -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 TAA21479 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:57:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XV0U-0002dJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:57:54 -0400 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XV0T-0002dC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:57:53 -0400 Received: (qmail 12726 invoked by uid 1013); 1 Jul 2003 23:57:53 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Danny Angus Cc: Yakov Shafranovich , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal Message-ID: <20030702015753.F74353@Space.Net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701172458.00bd1de0@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: ; from danny@apache.org on Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 10:54:46PM +0100 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: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 01:57:53 +0200 On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 10:54:46PM +0100, Danny Angus wrote: > We can look outside the domain of mail to find workable examples of trust, > PGP and SSL both make provision for the inclusion of out-of-channel trust > verification. I suppose in this situation it is whom you choose to inherit > trust from, and ultimately your trusted root trust providers. I don't think so. WebSites use SSL because every newspaper told Joe User that a server without SSL is insecure and steals your credit card number. However there are lots of Root CAs with different pricing and different policies and to be honest I don't trust any of them getting it right. So the Joe Users get tricked but I don't think any of the more technically oriented gets really trust from a SSL CERT. Thawte for example tries to trick them even more. Go to http://www.thawte.com/ and check the "SiteSeal". You can plug an image on your website that should tell the visitor that this is a kewl secure site. They do a lot of technical stuff and Javascript to make it as sure as possible for spoofing, but Joe User only sees an image and he won't even understand the technic involved. So I copy a image over and now my site is also real kewl save and protected and no Joe User will ever notice it's a fake. Joe User will stop looking at the browsers security info page that gives the REAL security information but look at yet another picture and will be tricked into a not existing security. For PGP they create a "web of trust". Guess what happens if I get your public key from a keyserver. Then I create 200 fake certificates and sign your key and after that I revoke the signs and submit it back to the keyserver. Who do you think will trust your key any longer? There is no such thing as established working "trust" mechanisms in the Internet of today (IMHO!!) They all fail miserably as early as because of non existant working revocation spreading mechanisms. If I get a CERT from Verisign for 2 years and they revoke it after one year, who do you think will notice that? With their security breach some months ago antivirus producers added the falsly issued certs to their antigenes so that the end user has at least a very little chance to notice abuse. \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 Jul 1 19:59:31 2003 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 TAA21625 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:59:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XV1b-0006DP-V5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:59:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h61Nx3NN023887 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:59:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XV1b-0006DC-RA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:59:03 -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 TAA21578; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:58:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XV1Z-0002i1-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:59:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XV1Z-0002hy-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:59:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XV1a-00069r-Do; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:59:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XV1T-00068L-29 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:58:55 -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 TAA21567 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:58:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XV1R-0002hX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:58:53 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XV1Q-0002g8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:58:52 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:57:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:46:00 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'John.Kurrle@mci.com'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] A slightly unusual idea 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: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:45:56 -0400 This has been proposed previously on the list: https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg02280.html There have also been some legislation proposed around this. > -----Original Message----- > From: John Kurrle [mailto:John.Kurrle@mci.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 7:06 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] A slightly unusual idea > > > I realize this is a rather unusual and perhaps impractical > idea, but I would like to suggest something. While the FTC > has a new "do not call" list set up at > http://www.donotcall.gov/ , why can't we set up something > similar? Set up a "don't spam me" web site. The person puts > in their email address, and the site uses some sort of > scripting (PHP, java, CGI, etc.) to then hit all the major > spammers' OptOut mechanisms. > > Most of the spam I get has some sort of "Opt Out" link or > instructions on it somewhere. They do seem to honor it, for > the most part. Case in point, I was getting in excess of 60 > spam emails a day last week on my yahoo account. I started > clicking on all the opt-out links and sending > remove/unsubscribe emails, according to their instructions. > Now, almost a week later, I've gotten less than 10 a day, and > that number keeps shrinking. > > By setting up a super "opt-out" site, you could possibly > reduce the transmissions of spam, simply by having your users > opt out at one site. Alternately, a network admin could opt > their user out as they set up the user's email account. > > Is it a "magic bullet"? Obviously not. The site would have > to be constantly maintained to keep opt-outs updated. Users > would likely have to visit the site periodically to opt out > on spam, once their inbox started filling up again. > Distinctions would have to be made between spam and > newsletters. Perhaps spam would need to be seperated into > categories (pornographic, get rich quick, mortgage/credit, > medical, etc.) with an option to opt out only from certain > categories. There are certainly other aspects to consider as well. > > I guess what I'm looking at is that users can filter spam, > but it doesn't stop the spam from coming in the first place. > Using a super opt-out site would allow the users to not have > the mail sent to them in the first place. Granted, there will > always be spammers that won't play well with this, but the > bulk of spammers do seem to provide and abide by their > opt-out procedures. A super opt-out web site might provide > temporary relief, until something better can be implemented. > > Again, perhaps it is impractical, but it still might be worth > considering... > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 1 20:14:36 2003 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 UAA22066 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:14:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XVGE-0006sN-9I for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:14:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h620EABp026422 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:14:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XVGE-0006s5-4y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:14:10 -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 UAA22058; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:14:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XVGC-0002wK-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:14:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XVGB-0002wH-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:14:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XVG5-0006q3-BE; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:14:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XVFm-0006pe-2O for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:13:42 -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 UAA22049 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:13:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XVFk-0002vu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:13:40 -0400 Received: from 000-257-992.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.247.183] helo=68.27.247.183 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XVFh-0002vo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:13:38 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701201304.00bd2df8@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Markus Stumpf , Danny Angus From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal 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: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:13:05 -0400 At 01:57 AM 7/2/2003 +0200, Markus Stumpf wrote: >On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 10:54:46PM +0100, Danny Angus wrote: > > We can look outside the domain of mail to find workable examples of trust, > > PGP and SSL both make provision for the inclusion of out-of-channel trust > > verification. I suppose in this situation it is whom you choose to inherit > > trust from, and ultimately your trusted root trust providers. >[..] > >There is no such thing as established working "trust" mechanisms in the >Internet of today (IMHO!!) They all fail miserably as early as because of >non existant working revocation spreading mechanisms. If I get a CERT >from Verisign for 2 years and they revoke it after one year, who do you >think will notice that? With their security breach some months ago >antivirus producers added the falsly issued certs to their antigenes >so that the end user has at least a very little chance to notice abuse. What about a central CA issuing certificates to other CAs, controlled by IANA or ICANN-type of organization? There are mechanisms in place to check verifications of certificates in real-time, and that can be implemented as well. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 20:15:34 2003 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 UAA22128 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:15:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XVH5-000718-G7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:15:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h620F3DK026968 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:15:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XVH5-00070t-C8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:15:03 -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 UAA22121; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:14:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XVH3-0002xF-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:15:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XVH2-0002xB-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:15:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XVH3-0006xa-Ab; Tue, 01 Jul 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 19XVGQ-0006tX-C1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:14:22 -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 UAA22063 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:14:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XVGO-0002wU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:14:20 -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 19XVGN-0002wR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:14:19 -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 h620EA52017885 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:14:10 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Bill Cole Subject: Re: [Asrg] A Little Background on 'GIEIS' And A Few Surprises 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, 1 Jul 2003 20:14:05 -0400 At 11:09 PM +0000 7/1/03, Mark McCarron wrote: >'GIEIS' will scan the Internet 24 hours a day for open ports, test >them and catalogue them. Be aware that any IP address seen to do that now without explicit permission is treated by many networks (including most that I've helped manage) as a source of abuse. I personally would consider that sort of activity unjustifiably obtrusive, and would consider any network hosting the source of such activity to be extremely suspect, to the point of treating their packets identically to any claiming to be from 10/8 but arriving on an external interface. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 20:17:30 2003 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 UAA22177 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:17:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XVJ1-00078l-DB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:17:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h620H3hH027441 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:17:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XVJ1-00078W-9D for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:17:03 -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 UAA22173; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:16:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XVIz-0002yu-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:17:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XVIy-0002yr-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:17:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XVIz-00075V-HW; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:17:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XVIe-00075H-Ow for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:16:40 -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 UAA22161 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:16:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XVIc-0002yd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:16:38 -0400 Received: from 000-257-992.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.247.183] helo=68.27.247.183 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XVIa-0002yZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:16:37 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701201553.00badde8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Bill Cole , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] A Little Background on 'GIEIS' And A Few Surprises 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: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:16:16 -0400 At 08:14 PM 7/1/2003 -0400, Bill Cole wrote: >At 11:09 PM +0000 7/1/03, Mark McCarron wrote: > >>'GIEIS' will scan the Internet 24 hours a day for open ports, test them >>and catalogue them. > >Be aware that any IP address seen to do that now without explicit >permission is treated by many networks (including most that I've helped >manage) as a source of abuse. I personally would consider that sort of >activity unjustifiably obtrusive, and would consider any network hosting >the source of such activity to be extremely suspect, to the point of >treating their packets identically to any claiming to be from 10/8 but >arriving on an external interface. In addition, in some jurisdiction this may be considered illegal. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 20:21:29 2003 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 UAA22282 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:21:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XVMt-0007Hz-GD for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:21:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h620L30u028013 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:21:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XVMt-0007Hk-Ck for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:21:03 -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 UAA22268; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:20:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XVMr-00031v-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:21:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XVMq-00031s-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:21:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XVMq-0007Ea-T1; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:21:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XVMN-0007EE-QN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:20:31 -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 UAA22252 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:20:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XVML-00031I-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:20:29 -0400 Received: from 000-257-992.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.247.183] helo=68.27.247.183 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XVMI-00031C-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:20:27 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701201718.00bc0df8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Mark McCarron" , danny@apache.org, asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] (no subject) 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: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:20:05 -0400 At 04:00 PM 7/1/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >[..] >Thanks for your comments. My response are in the body of the message >below. This post relates to the 'GIEIS' system viewable here at: >[..] > >>From: "Danny Angus" >>To: "Mark McCarron" , >>Subject: RE: [Asrg] (no subject) >>Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 14:33:57 +0100 >> >>Mark McCarron wrote: >> >> > SMTP is a dying >> > protocol, imagine what it would be like in 10 years? >> >>Erm .. I don't think that is quite correct, surely? >>I know that IM is growing in popularity and I wouldn't be surprised if >>SMTP was loosing "market share" but to describe what must be one of, if >>not the, most widely used internet protocols as dying is preposterous. >> >>Perhaps you could back up your claim with evidence, I'd be happy to eat >>humble pie if you're right. > >Mark's Response: > >SMTP is a dying protocol. It was never designed to handle the current >flow of email on the Internet nor provide the security for it. As long as >SMTP exists, spam, virus', worms and trojans will only grow on the >Internet to an unbelievable level. Every resolution has been attempted >and failed. Let me make this crystal clear for everyone, SMTP cannot EVER >be secured. We are rapidly coming to the point were email would be >withdrawn completely. This is not some idle threat, but a proposal >seriously being considered. Anyone who knows the technical side of SMTP, >will tell you quite clearly that the protocol itself is to blame. Spam >accounts for 30% of all traffic on the Internet now, what percentage would >it be in 10 years? >[..] It has been mentioned many times that the problem is not just SMTP - its all of Internet. The Internet including all of its protocols cannot be secured since all of the underlying protocols were developed as an open system. Getting rid of SMTP alone, will not solve the problem of underlying openness. >[..] > >> > The system we tested it on was a private network, also, it wasn't >> > using the >> > full aspects of the 'GIEIS' design. It was just a feasibility >> > test and it >> > responded well, in fact, 100%. >> >>100% of what? did you try to break it, did you try to fool it, what >>happens to mail if you launch a DOS attack on the token server? > >Mark's Response: > >Dos (denial of service) does not work on every machine. Proper security >measures eliminate this threat. Dry run 'GIEIS' for yourself, its unbreakable. "Security by obscurity" does not work - until the system is deployed in the wild, no one can calim that its secure. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 20:28:32 2003 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 UAA22430 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:28:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XVTh-0007Rd-Ox for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:28:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h620S5UY028614 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:28:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XVTh-0007RR-MC for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:28:05 -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 UAA22395; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:28:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XVTf-00036I-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:28:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XVTe-00036F-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:28:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XVTd-0007OM-AU; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:28:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XVT8-0007O2-Qu for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:27:30 -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 UAA22392 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:27:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XVT6-00035v-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:27:28 -0400 Received: from bay8-f66.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.66] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XVT6-00035g-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:27:28 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:26:58 -0700 Received: from 213.104.228.122 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 00:26:57 GMT X-Originating-IP: [213.104.228.122] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: research@solidmatrix.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - More Comments Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jul 2003 00:26:58.0352 (UTC) FILETIME=[A5F6AB00:01C34030] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 02 Jul 2003 00:26:57 +0000 Thanks for your comments. Please my responses in the body of the message below. This post refers to the 'GIEIS' system (Version 0.002). The system can be viewed here at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis The webpage was last updated 1st July 2003, Mark McCarron. >From: Yakov Shafranovich >To: "Mark McCarron" ,danny@apache.org, >asrg@ietf.org >Subject: RE: [Asrg] (no subject) >Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:20:05 -0400 > >At 04:00 PM 7/1/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>[..] >>Thanks for your comments. My response are in the body of the message >>below. This post relates to the 'GIEIS' system viewable here at: >>[..] >> >>>From: "Danny Angus" >>>To: "Mark McCarron" , >>>Subject: RE: [Asrg] (no subject) >>>Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 14:33:57 +0100 >>> >>>Mark McCarron wrote: >>> >>> > SMTP is a dying >>> > protocol, imagine what it would be like in 10 years? >>> >>>Erm .. I don't think that is quite correct, surely? >>>I know that IM is growing in popularity and I wouldn't be surprised if >>>SMTP was loosing "market share" but to describe what must be one of, if >>>not the, most widely used internet protocols as dying is preposterous. >>> >>>Perhaps you could back up your claim with evidence, I'd be happy to eat >>>humble pie if you're right. >> >>Mark's Response: >> >>SMTP is a dying protocol. It was never designed to handle the current >>flow of email on the Internet nor provide the security for it. As long as >>SMTP exists, spam, virus', worms and trojans will only grow on the >>Internet to an unbelievable level. Every resolution has been attempted >>and failed. Let me make this crystal clear for everyone, SMTP cannot EVER >>be secured. We are rapidly coming to the point were email would be >>withdrawn completely. This is not some idle threat, but a proposal >>seriously being considered. Anyone who knows the technical side of SMTP, >>will tell you quite clearly that the protocol itself is to blame. Spam >>accounts for 30% of all traffic on the Internet now, what percentage would >>it be in 10 years? >>[..] > >It has been mentioned many times that the problem is not just SMTP - its >all of Internet. The Internet including all of its protocols cannot be >secured since all of the underlying protocols were developed as an open >system. Getting rid of SMTP alone, will not solve the problem of underlying >openness. > >>[..] Mark's Response: We are specifically dealing with spam. Other protocols have no bearing on the subject. >> >>> > The system we tested it on was a private network, also, it wasn't >>> > using the >>> > full aspects of the 'GIEIS' design. It was just a feasibility >>> > test and it >>> > responded well, in fact, 100%. >>> >>>100% of what? did you try to break it, did you try to fool it, what >>>happens to mail if you launch a DOS attack on the token server? >> >>Mark's Response: >> >>Dos (denial of service) does not work on every machine. Proper security >>measures eliminate this threat. Dry run 'GIEIS' for yourself, its >>unbreakable. > >"Security by obscurity" does not work - until the system is deployed in the >wild, no one can calim that its secure. > Mark's Response: If you can foresee any possible flaws please post them here. _________________________________________________________________ Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you. http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 20:40:35 2003 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 UAA22764 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:40:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XVfN-0007vS-Ek for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:40:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h620e9rL030461 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:40:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XVfM-0007vE-S2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:40:08 -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 UAA22757; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:40:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XVfK-0003FL-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:40:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XVfJ-0003FI-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:40:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XVfF-0007s1-Pw; Tue, 01 Jul 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 19XVew-0007rL-64 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:39:42 -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 UAA22752 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:39:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XVet-0003F8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:39:39 -0400 Received: from 000-257-992.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.247.183] helo=68.27.247.183 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XVer-0003F4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:39:39 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701203350.00bd2df8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: , "'Kee Hinckley'" , "'Barry Shein'" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Warning people of "intent to send" large quantities of email Cc: In-Reply-To: <004301c3401a$7b548590$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> 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, 01 Jul 2003 20:39:15 -0400 At 05:48 PM 7/1/2003 -0400, Bob Wyman wrote: >It has been suggested that folk like the FTC should "talk with spam >filtering companies" prior to sending out large quantities of mail -- >even if that mail is unquestionably "non-spam." This is easy to say. >However, it isn't obvious to me who these "spam filter companies" are. >If I was going to send out a few hundred thousand legitimate messages >sometime next week, who would I warn? How would I contact them? > It seems to me that if we have a system that relies on people >talking with each other, then we need to put in place some mechanism so >that they can find each other to begin the discussions. > * Should we have a mailing list to which people can send notices >of "intent to send" large quantities of mail? > * If you are warning someone, what form should the warning take? >Should it include a sample message? Should it include the headers that >you will be sending? Should it include information on the number of >messages that you'll send? How about providing information concerning >the time of day that the message will be sent? > * Is there a place for standards on how such warnings should be >issued? If so, who should draft and promulgate such a standard? > * Should there be third-party "judges" established that will >have the time, patience and skills to determine whether planned email >blasts are legitimate? If so, who should these judges be? One of the anti-spam sites should probably do that or perhaps the Network Abuse Clearing House. Another idea is that a site like (http://www.the-carrot-and-the-stick.com/) that maintains a whitelist of ISPS that might be sending large amounts of mail but are not spam. Or perhaps its time to create a new central anti-spam site with this info. I have been advocating before that we should think about creating a site on Email Standards similar to the Web Standards Project (www.webstandards.org). This may be something fit for such project. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 20:45:31 2003 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 UAA23067 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:45:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XVk8-00087H-Ro for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:45:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h620j48r031195 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:45:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XVk8-000874-Oj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:45:04 -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 UAA23034; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:45:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XVk6-0003Mj-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:45:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XVk5-0003Mf-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:45:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XVk5-00083q-PL; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:45:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XVjx-00082o-1k for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:44:53 -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 UAA22992 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:44:48 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XVju-0003M6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:44:50 -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 19XVju-0003M3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:44:50 -0400 Received: (cpmta 24485 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2003 17:44:49 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.65) with SMTP; 1 Jul 2003 17:44:49 -0700 X-Sent: 2 Jul 2003 00:44:49 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:43:27 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:12:14 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Disposable short-term E-mail addresses To: Yakov Shafranovich , asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701173757.00bd33c0@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: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:12:14 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>Here's an interesting approach. >> >>A company is offering free "disposable" E-mail addresses... but unlike >>Yahoo/Hotmail/etc, these are short-duration E-mail addresses that >>self-destruct >>after a short time (1-8 days). >> >>You give them your "real" E-mail address (which they promise not to sell...?) >>and how long you want it to last, and they generate a "disposable" E-mail >>address which will forward to your real one for the indicated lifespan. >> >>The obvious use is when you "need" to give your E-mail address to some >>Website >>or something for them to send something to you (say, a login password or >>confirmation code or something) but where you maybe don't trust them to not >>abuse that E-mail address in the future. >Interesting concepts but two thoughts come up: what do they do about >privacy They discuss that at their Web site, I think, but I didn't bother to go there (since I wasn't personally all that likely to use their service...) > and what happens when addresses are reused? I'd presume that they NEVER reuse them. 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 Jul 1 21:06:34 2003 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 VAA23581 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 21:06:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XW4U-0008Sz-8I for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 21:06:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h621662C032542 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 21:06:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XW4U-0008Sn-3M for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 21:06:06 -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 VAA23577; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 21:06:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XW4R-0003g8-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 21:06:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XW4Q-0003g5-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 21:06:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XW4P-0008Pb-NF; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 21:06:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XW4E-0008PB-Vg for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 21:05:50 -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 VAA23571 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 21:05:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XW4C-0003fj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 21:05:48 -0400 Received: from 000-257-992.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.247.183] helo=68.27.247.183 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XW4A-0003fY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 21:05:47 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701210327.00badde8@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 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] 2.C.1.Where spam comes from - Fwd: Re: Using DShield data to detect 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, 01 Jul 2003 21:05:18 -0400 I got the following response from DShield.org. This is in line with someone's suggestions for a detection system. Yakov >Date: 01 Jul 2003 21:00:01 -0400 >From: "Johannes Ullrich" >To: "Yakov Shafranovich" >Subject: Re: Using DShield data to detect spam > >sure. the one way we see spammers is in open proxy and relay scans. >If you think data like this can help, I could provide some extracts. > >On Tue, 2003-07-01 at 20:23, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am a member of the Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) of the IRTF > > (www.irtf.org/asrg/). One of the things that has been discussed in our > > group is feasibility to using a distributed detection network such as > > DShield.org to detect computers and systems that send out spam. This would > > include systems infected with viruses that facilitate such behavior, and > > open relays. I would like to get your opinion on this matter. > > > > Sincerely, > > Yakov Shafranovich _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 21:29:40 2003 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 VAA23963 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 21:29:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XWQq-0000a2-PK for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 21:29:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h621TCku002224 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 21:29:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XWQq-0000Zn-Ku for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 21:29:12 -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 VAA23950; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 21:29:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XWQn-0003uL-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 21:29:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XWQn-0003uI-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 21:29:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XWQf-0000X7-GQ; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 21:29:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XWQJ-0000Wa-89 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 21:28:39 -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 VAA23921 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 21:28:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XWQG-0003tZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 21:28:36 -0400 Received: from 000-257-992.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.247.183] helo=68.27.247.183 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XWQE-0003tT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 21:28:35 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701212818.00bd2df8@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 - Spammers and zombies Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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 21:28:19 -0400 Take a look at this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/technology/3036092.stm) at BBC. ----snip--- Computers belonging to thousands of companies across the world are being hijacked by e-mail spammers to disguise their true identities and host their websites. -----snip---- Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 1 22:56:39 2003 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 WAA25761 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 22:56:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XXn3-0002pV-1o for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 22:56:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h622uDQU010873 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 22:56:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XXn2-0002pI-Uh for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 22:56:12 -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 WAA25753; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 22:56:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XXmz-0004dH-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 22:56:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XXmy-0004dD-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 22:56:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XXmr-0002nC-Vi; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 22:56:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XXmb-0002my-M3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 22:55:45 -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 WAA25733 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 22:55:41 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XXmY-0004d1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 22:55:42 -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 19XXmX-0004cx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 22:55:41 -0400 Received: (cpmta 14986 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2003 19:55:40 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.72) with SMTP; 1 Jul 2003 19:55:40 -0700 X-Sent: 2 Jul 2003 02:55:40 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Tue, 1 Jul 2003 21:54:24 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 22:23:11 -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] Bogus reasoning Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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 22:23:11 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > As I stated before and you can try this for yourself, the cost of implementing 'GIEIS' would be exceeded by the loss to business by keeping the SMTP protocol. Allow me to demonstrate this clearly for everyone. Yesterday, I calculated (at ciphertrust.com) that 1000 employees, earning an average of $15,000 per year, recieving 20 spam messages a day would result in losses of $31,250. Now, America has approx. 300 Million inhabitants, lets say 2 thirds of the population are not affected by spam in the workplace. That still leaves us with 100 Million who would be. Now we'll assume that their average wage would be $15,000 per year (very reasonable assumption), if it cost 1000, $31,250, then it costs $31.25 per person, per year. $31.25 multiplied by 100 Million is $3,125,000,000 per year. This is just for America alone. 'GIEIS' could absorb $1 Billion per year and still make business a substantial profit. Oh, and one other point, I haven't even begun to add on the cost of virus', trojans, etc. Therefore, 'GIEIS' has complete financial justificaton. Good example of what starts out as a fairly reasonable argument but which then makes a large and unjustified leap at the end to a completely illegitimate and unjustified conclusion. It's rather like the timeshare sales presentations which go something like this: 1) Do you like the resort? (A: yes, of course.) 2) Can you afford it? (A: yes.) 3) Good, sign here. The fact is that there are often ALTERNATIVES which are MORE appealing and MORE cost-effective. You can't say that "GIEIS" "has complete financial justification" until you demonstrate not only that IT solves the problem, but moreover that nothing else solves it better for less. Personally, I don't think that *any* solution that to be effective requires re-engineering the entire world's E-mail infrastructure is a practical solution today. There's just too much of it, in too many places, and with too little onsite technical expertise in many of those places. Again, that's what I like about my "permission list" approach... where it can be implemented in as little as ONE SINGLE CLIENT SYSTEM and yield an immediate, direct benefit. It's a scaleable and incrementally implementable approach, which is unlike just about ANYTHING else I've seen proposed here. What's more, it's easy to understand and could be manipulated by the user more-or-less directly. The user who benefits the most from it (and is thus motivated) is the user who sets up the permission list and maintains it. It IS true that it doesn't (by itself) "eliminate" spam... but neither will anything else I've seen discussed here, either. My system, in conjunction with a good content filter to clean up a lot of the residual plain ASCII text spams (and which are thus rendered FAR easier to filter) will probably yield the highest benefit, the fastest, for the lowest cost of anything we've been talking about. 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 Jul 1 23:40:39 2003 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 XAA26576 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 23:40:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XYTb-000428-HY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 23:40:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h623eBX4015504 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 23:40:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XYTb-00041z-3J for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 23:40:11 -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 XAA26572; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 23:40:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XYTZ-0004xn-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 23:40:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XYTY-0004xk-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 23:40:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XYTS-0003yo-4y; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 23:40:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XYTP-0003y1-SL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 23:39:59 -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 XAA26555 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 23:39:56 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XYTN-0004xW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 23:39:57 -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 19XYTN-0004xT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 23:39:57 -0400 Received: (cpmta 11806 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2003 20:39:57 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.65) with SMTP; 1 Jul 2003 20:39:57 -0700 X-Sent: 2 Jul 2003 03:39:57 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Tue, 1 Jul 2003 22:39:35 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 23:08:22 -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] Consent 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: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 23:08:22 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > 1. If consent can be "expressed" in some sort of a document or data structure, that "expression of consent" can be communicated or moved from the local periphery of the system into the more global core. Thus, I, my ISP, or my organization, might prepare an "expression of consent" that states that mail will not be accepted if it exceeds certain sizes, contains certain elements (such as attachments) or is of a "commercial" nature. I think an important aspect of such a consent-based system is precisely that the sender (or spammer or whoever) MUST NOT BE ABLE TO INQUIRE IN ADVANCE regarding what (hypothetically) would and would not be accepted. A classical problem in computing is when one system misleads another into making an irrevocable, wrong decision. One example of such a problem is where the sender inquires about what I'm allowing today, and finds out that I've turned off HTML from unlisted senders. They proceed to send me plain ASCII text. The problem comes from the fact that I could change my policy regarding that sender AT ANY TIME. So they might ask, for example, if they can send HTML... my server says "sure! You're approved" and meanwhile I turn off their permission. Now they send me HTML-burdened mail and it says "sorry! Not allowed" and they look bewildered and say, "WHAT GIVES?!" Here's another example. A common request to system designers is "tell me how much free space is on such-and-such-a-volume". The OS returns a message saying "I have this much" and the application then presumes it can write a file that big. But by the time it gets there, the space has already been used by someone else... a far better solution is to go ahead and create the file you want, position out to the end of it and write the last sector to allocate the space (presuming that it DOES that in your system!) and THEN proceed to transfer your data into your (now assured!) disk space. That way, you don't get caught short, and you don't make a (perhaps irrevocable) decision based on data which later turns out to have been inaccurate. I think that the RECIPIENT should adjust the permissions to gate in what they EXPECT the sender to send, based on their knowledge of what that sender DOES send. (And hopefully can set the options so their sender will send plain ASCII text!) The point is that you allow what you want and expect, and simply gate out everything else as unexpected and atypical and therefore probably wrong. As an example, Aunt Gertrude is on AOL and sends their stupid default HTML-burdened E-mails, but those never have anything in them much beyond boldface, italics, maybe a couple of font changes... never scripting or convoluted hyperlinks, tables, ActiveX, or such. If she ever sent me an attachment, it would be nothing more scary than a JPG file. So ideally I could set her permissions to allow her to do [only just!] what she's likely to do. It's not unlike a credit card company which develops a feel for the pattern of your use of your credit card, and then when they suddenly see a highly atypical purchase for $500 worth of tequila at a liquor store in the far other end of your city... they might call you at home to try to verify that the charge is yours, and that you still have your card. That's really the goal of the permissions system... to allow the people you know and trust to (just) do what you expect them to do, and send you what they send you. People who you don't know (yet) can still reach you by using least-common-denominator, safe and universal stuff like plain ASCII... and once you've developed a relationship, you can upgrade their permissions (if appropriate and necessary) to allow them somewhat wider range of expression if the recipient deems that appropriate. But I do NOT believe that "just anybody" on the Net should be able to inquire about what you do and don't permit. They ought to (like creating the big file) simply try it and it will either work or it won't. (Or, better yet, simply send the COMPATIBLE UNIVERSAL format to begin with, and never PRESUME that they can send anything else unless they clear it with the intended recipient first...) Besides, for privacy reasons, I don't want anybody else but me and my ISP or domain provider looking at my personal permissions list. > If this expression can be accessed by arbitrary nodes, then either sending nodes or intermediate nodes would be able to determine what had been consented to and decide whether to originate or relay any particular message. I think that approach, while it might sound appealing, is a VERY bad architectural model. > A very simple version of such a system would be created if we were to adopt something like the "donotcall.gov" system which is used to block telemarketing calls in the US. There is a BIG difference, though. There, everyone is pretty much in the same boat ("a telemarketer is a telemarketer") and there is a Federal law waiting to prosecute those who misuse the phone numbers on the list they get. > 2. If systems that rely on "licenses to send" or recipient-issued tokens are deployed, then depending on the way these things are implemented, upstream nodes would be able to inspect the licenses and determine whether or not a particular message was, in fact, authorized. Except for the fact that they probably CANNOT. Again, consider the case of a Yahoogroups mailing list. Messages are either delivered individually (bearing the name of the sender) or as a digest (and thus bearing the name of the list). Another point is that a digest might have a largeish number of messages from different people, and IF those people are in fact known (or some of them known) to the recipient, they MIGHT have different permission rules. And like the challenge-response issues I mentioned in an earlier post, there is really no way in general for a recipient (or even his ISP) to reach back and figure out how to contact (directly) the "original" SMTP server which originated the message (at least certainly not by the return address). > Depending on implementation choices, non-authorized messages could be either discarded, subjected to more or greater "spam-detection" inspections, or routed at lower quality of service. Actually, the solution I like best of the ones I've heard so far for this is (again) the solution I proposed... where periodically a "digest" of suspected spam messages (say, one or two lines each) is sent in an E-mail to the intended recipient, so that they can vet them in a sort of triage and ask their ISP to move false positives back into their 'to be delivered' queue. This allows the recipient to (in a single E-mail) quickly scan down a list of maybe as many as a hundred or more E-mails and decide which ones they want to look at. In a way, this is like the newspaper. If you get a daily newspaper, few if any people read it cover to cover. Instead, you can leaf through it and pick-and-choose the articles and items that look like they might be interesting. (And HOPEFULLY, legitimate senders will quickly learn that sending unanticipated mail in anything other than plain ASCII will reduce dramatically the likelihood that it will ever be read...) 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 Jul 2 00:46:52 2003 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 AAA27632 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 00:46:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XZVh-0005a8-Kz for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 00:46:25 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h624kP7v021456 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 00:46:25 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XZVh-0005Zz-EM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 00:46:25 -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 AAA27628; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 00:46:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XZVe-0005RU-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 00:46:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XZVe-0005RR-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 00:46:22 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XZVJ-0005Wq-Mp; Wed, 02 Jul 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 19XZV0-0005WS-Bf for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 00:45:42 -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 AAA27616 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 00:45:38 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XZUx-0005R7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 00:45:39 -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 19XZUw-0005R1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 00:45:38 -0400 Received: (cpmta 27536 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2003 21:45:36 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.71) with SMTP; 1 Jul 2003 21:45:36 -0700 X-Sent: 2 Jul 2003 04:45:36 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Tue, 1 Jul 2003 23:44:45 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 00:13:33 -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] "Super Opt-Out" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 02 Jul 2003 00:13:33 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I realize this is a rather unusual and perhaps impractical idea, but I would like to suggest something. While the FTC has a new "do not call" list set up at http://www.donotcall.gov/ , why can't we set up something similar? Set up a "don't spam me" web site. And you think that spammers, who BLATANTLY defraud people by the millions, steal resources, SPECIFICALLY put in all kinds of devious strategems that are there FOR ONE AND *ONLY* ONE PURPOSE... to get past filters SPECIFICALLY designed to keep OUT messages just like theirs... are going to respect opt-out requests? > The person puts in their email address, and the site uses some sort of scripting (PHP, java, CGI, etc.) to then hit all the major spammers' OptOut mechanisms. The *fact* is that most "opt out" mechanisms are a fraud, and those addresses requesting "opt out" are sold AT A PREMIUM to other spammers... they're proof not only that those are good E-mail addresses, but that they're also addresses of people who opened the spam the opt-out instructions came in and read enough of it to figure out what hoops they had to jump through to request the opt-out. > Most of the spam I get has some sort of "Opt Out" link or instructions on it somewhere. Right, and the great majority of that is either totally bogus (going for example to a nonexistent E-mail account or a bogus domain) or headed to (say) a Hotmail account or something where such use is a violation of the ToS and will therefore be closed instantly. If nothing else, such "opt out" mailboxes (for a mailing of more than a million pieces) are going to flood with at least tens of thousands of opt-out requests, and virtually no normal-user ISP accounts are prepared to deal with such volumes of replies, into a single mailbox... meaning that most such requests are bounced or lost. Indeed, I think that some spammers probably send these "unsubscribe/opt-out" messages to E-mail addresses of folks they dislike, sort of as a 'joe-job" or DoS. > They do seem to honor it, for the most part. I don't know who you're getting spam from, but that's VERY MUCH not my experience, nor that of my consulting clients and friends. > Case in point, I was getting in excess of 60 spam emails a day last week on my yahoo account. I started clicking on all the opt-out links and sending remove/unsubscribe emails, according to their instructions. Now, almost a week later, I've gotten less than 10 a day, and that number keeps shrinking. I think that your spam reduction is probably due more to an improvement in Yahoo's spam filtering than it is due to the 'unsubscribe' links you've responded to. > By setting up a super "opt-out" site, you could possibly reduce the transmissions of spam, simply by having your users opt out at one site. Alternately, a network admin could opt their user out as they set up the user's email account. Opt-out is a BAD design, right from the beginning. There are probably 20-30 million businesses in the USA which might like to sell me something. If each one of those sent me JUST ONE E-mail A YEAR (!) that's 68,000 e-mails PER DAY in my Inbox, and it wouldn't be until a WHOLE YEAR LATER that the flood would stop. And that's if EVERY 'opt-out' request was in fact honored (in fact, almost none are). How many "opt out" hoops are YOU willing to jump through? Especially when no two spammers have quite the same procedure for "opting out"? > Is it a "magic bullet"? Obviously not. The site would have to be constantly maintained to keep opt-outs updated. Users would likely have to visit the site periodically to opt out on spam, once their inbox started filling up again. Distinctions would have to be made between spam and newsletters. Perhaps spam would need to be seperated into categories (pornographic, get rich quick, mortgage/credit, medical, etc.) with an option to opt out only from certain categories. There are certainly other aspects to consider as well. The bottom line however is that A RECIPIENT'S MAILBOX IS *THEIR* PROPERTY and they shouldn't have a dumptruck backing up to it every day to shovel tons of unwanted crap into it. The government needs to make it clear that sending spam is ILLEGAL, and they ought to pursue it vigorously. Until they do, we need to implement technical means (like my permission list, coupled probably with some kind of a content filter) which will reduce the number and bulk of messages that DO get through... dispatching most of them (and most of the bulk) automatically, and reducing as much as possible the time and effort it takes for a human to deal with the residual ones that do still slip through. > I guess what I'm looking at is that users can filter spam, but it doesn't stop the spam from coming in the first place. I personally believe that the first really practical place for spam to be taken out of the delivery chain (in general!) is at the destination domain (based on the E-mail address). This might be at the intended recipient's ISP, or at their personal domain's domain service provider. Now, IF a sending ISP is able to detect a flood of spam coming out... then it would be nice to catch that, too. That's really a separate problem. Perhaps though, again, some sort of 'abnormal behavior" detector is appropriate. For instance, a typical home user probably wouldn't send more than (say) 10K outgoing e-mails per month (and maybe more like 300-1K). It might be reasonable to apply a cap of (say) 10x their typical usage, and require they call their ISP or something if they find (legitimately) that they've hit their limit. This way, a sudden big surge in outgoing sends could raise red flags both for the user, AND for their ISP. The same kind of approach could work for corporate and business users, too... a sudden unexplained surge in outgoing mail could "blow the circuit breaker" and require some kind of investigation and manual reset. This kind of "circuit breaker" could be provided either at the customer end (their E-mail client, their Exchange server, their local SMTP server, whatever) or could be implemented at their ISP's MTA. Most hijacked systems are simply not habitually going to send out the kind of large volumes that spammers call upon them to suddenly send. If to send out a (relatively small, by spam standards) five million piece mailing, a spammer had to hijack 10,000 victim machines (instead of five or ten) where each victim popped their virtual circuit breaker at (say) 500 pieces mailed per day... then (1) it's going to be a much bigger pain for the spammer to deal with that many surrogates, (2) they're going to run through their database of open relays and hijacked systems much, much quicker, and (3) the companies (or individuals!) with the irresponsibly managed systems are going to find out and (hopefully) correct the problem before very much (more!) damage can be done. > Using a super opt-out site would allow the users to not have the mail sent to them in the first place. The problem with these approaches is that it is SIMPLY WRONG to expect unwilling recipients to have to jump through hoops specified arbitrarily by those who they don't have any desire to even hear from, let alone do business with. > Granted, there will always be spammers that won't play well with this, Yup. Like ALL of them. If spammers "played well" and really didn't want to "inconvenience" the recipient, then they wouldn't use counterfeit forged return addresses, deceptive subject lines, and (especially) various evasions in their messages (much of it based on HTML or text-as-image) to try to avoid filters put in place by the users to keep EXACTLY such messages out of their Inboxes. But they DO all those things, and they do it FOR ONLY ONE REASON... because they do NOT want to respect the clearly expressed will of the recipient. And THAT is why your "super opt out, based on the good will of the spammers" is simply DOA. > ...but the bulk of spammers do seem to provide and abide by their opt-out procedures. I have NO idea what planet YOU'VE been living on. > A super opt-out web site might provide temporary relief, until something better can be implemented. It would result in giving spammers a HUGE list of E-mail addresses that they might not have gotten around to harvesting on their own for a few more hours/days/weeks/months. Sorry, I think that is a REALLY BUM idea. > Again, perhaps it is impractical, but it still might be worth considering... For a few milliseconds, maybe. Sorry, I TRULY do not 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 Wed Jul 2 04:13:24 2003 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 EAA27915 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 04:13:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XcjY-0005YB-EE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:12:56 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h628Cuen021333 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 04:12:56 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XcjX-0005Y0-KL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:12:55 -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 EAA27904; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 04:12:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XcjU-0007AC-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:12:53 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XcjU-0007A9-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:12:52 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xcie-0005R5-NE; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:12:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XciW-0005Qo-GD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:11:52 -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 EAA27895 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 04:11:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XciT-00079x-00 for ASRG@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:11:49 -0400 Received: from umhost.ukerna.ac.uk ([193.62.83.176]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XciT-00079o-00 for ASRG@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:11:49 -0400 Received: from controller1.ukerna.ac.uk ([193.62.83.212]) by umhost.ukerna.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.01) id 19Xchz-0006XU-00 for ASRG@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 09:11:19 +0100 Received: from zamm.ukerna.ac.uk ([194.82.141.216]) by controller1.ukerna.ac.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2656.59) id NP1ZL15K; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 09:11:18 +0100 Message-Id: <5.1.1.6.0.20030702083447.027f6748@controller1.ukerna.ac.uk> X-Sender: atlas/rodneyt/r.tillotson@controller1.ukerna.ac.uk (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1 To: ASRG@ietf.org From: Rodney Tillotson In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701212818.00bd2df8@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [Asrg] Re: News Article - Spammers and zombies Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 02 Jul 2003 09:12:59 +0100 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 01/07/2003 21:28 -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/technology/3036092.stm > ... > Computers belonging to thousands of companies across the world are > being hijacked by e-mail spammers to disguise their true identities > and host their websites. The 'disguising' systems were mostly open proxies; systems left insecure by their owners but not modified by an intruder. I guess the website hosting was either through vulnerabilities of running servers or a combination of open proxy client and wrong ACL on proxy server; but I haven't checked that. There is a quite different process where someone adds or modifies software by Trojan persuasion or some platform vulnerability, and the added software acts as a bulk mail injector. Not picking nits, but using the name 'zombie' instead of a description assumes we all know the code, and in this case either Yakov or I (or both) did not. If forced to use 'zombie' I would take it to be the added software, and the BBC report was about open proxies. And, of course, 'spam' is name calling too. Since it needs to be defined on each occasion it is used, you shouldn't bother. This group has found that out but (if other forums are any guide) will probably have to revisit it at regular intervals. I will not trigger that just now -- I hope :-) The article probably conveys something reasonable to lay readers, so it's a good one. For this group, perhaps note that a variety of technologies and business practices are brought together to achieve marketing through Unsolicited Bulk E-mail. It's a broad problem and the way out of it will take a broad range of activities. But you knew that. Incidentally, I gather that the bulk mailers thrown off Telefonica in the article have moved to Verio. Rodney Tillotson, JANET-CERT +44 1235 822 255. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBPwKUBMxy/J7PAuvpEQJykgCg5z2BUzY9OgYcaAx3NHRH3fPj5O4AoO+E r87eZQNOlXZKZmg7b9IHvn+h =RID6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 04:24:17 2003 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 EAA28269 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 04:24:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xcu5-00066h-KS for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:23:49 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h628Nn8s023469 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 04:23:49 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xcu5-00066S-8I for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:23:49 -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 EAA28251; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 04:23:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xcu2-0007It-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:23:46 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xcu1-0007Iq-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:23:45 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XctM-0005zJ-G3; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:23:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XcsW-0005yc-Q8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:22:12 -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 EAA28201 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 04:22:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XcsU-0007Hz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:22:10 -0400 Received: from bay2-f28.bay2.hotmail.com ([65.54.247.28] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XcsT-0007HY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:22:09 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 01:20:22 -0700 Received: from 192.85.16.3 by by2fd.bay2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:20:22 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] 2a. Spam Measurement - SenderBase.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jul 2003 08:20:22.0289 (UTC) FILETIME=[C8078010:01C34072] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 02 Jul 2003 06:20:22 -0200 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: ..... >>At 05:13 PM 7/1/2003 -0400, Olson, Margaret wrote: >>their TV ratings. We receive data feeds from over 6,000 domains ......... >>We then parse this data by sending domain and IP address and scale up our >>estimates based on our estimate of the % of email ....... >>>From: Yakov Shafranovich I recently ran across this website, >>>www.senderbase.com, ........ >>>seems to be a collection of spam statistics split up by domain/IP,etc. It is really a pity, that they did not parse the URL:s used in the spams as well. Then we really would have had a good picture of what real spam domains there is. 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 Wed Jul 2 04:36:08 2003 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 EAA28550 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 04:36:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xd5Z-0006Rg-14 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:35:41 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h628ZfGu024770 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 04:35:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xd5Y-0006RR-SN for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:35:40 -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 EAA28534; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 04:35:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xd5V-0007PT-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:35:38 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xd5V-0007PQ-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:35:37 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xd4v-0006KW-I7; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:35:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xd4t-0006Jx-Qc for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:34:59 -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 EAA28520 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 04:34:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xd4r-0007Ow-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:34:57 -0400 Received: from tarbolton.demon.co.uk ([212.229.119.215] helo=killerbees.co.uk) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xd4q-0007Ot-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:34:56 -0400 Received: from mailtest ([192.168.0.2]) by killerbees.co.uk (JAMES SMTP Server 3.0a1) with SMTP ID 609; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:50:17 +0100 (BST) From: "Danny Angus" To: "Markus Stumpf" , "Asrg@Ietf. Org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <20030702015753.F74353@Space.Net> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 2 Jul 2003 09:38:22 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PiBIb3dldmVyDQo+IHRoZXJlIGFyZSBsb3RzIG9mIFJvb3QgQ0FzIHdpdGggZGlmZmVyZW50IHBy aWNpbmcgYW5kIGRpZmZlcmVudA0KPiBwb2xpY2llcyBhbmQgdG8gYmUgaG9uZXN0IEkgZG9uJ3Qg dHJ1c3QgYW55IG9mIHRoZW0gZ2V0dGluZyBpdCByaWdodC4NCg0KRXhhY3RseSEgVGhpcyBpcyBh IHRydXN0IG1lY2hhbmlzbSwgZm9yIGl0IHRvIHdvcmsgeW91IGhhdmUgdG8gdHJ1c3Qgc29tZW9u ZS4gRW5kIG9mIHN0b3J5Lg0KDQpUcnVzdCBtZWNoYW5pc21zIGRvbid0IHdvcmsgd2l0aG91dCB0 cnVzdC4NCg0KV2hhdCBkb2VzIHdvcmsgYXJlIHRoZSBtZWNoYW5pc21zIHdoaWNoIGV4aXN0IGZv ciBwcm9wb2dhdGluZyBhbmQgcmV2b2tpbmcgdHJ1c3QsIHRoYXQgeW91IGRvbid0IHRydXN0IGFu eW9uZSBpcyBhIGNvbXBsZXRlbHkgZGlmZmVyZW50IGlzc3VlLg0KDQpkLw== _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 04:58:13 2003 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 EAA28969 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 04:58:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XdQw-00076j-0y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:57:46 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h628vkJ4027317 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 04:57:46 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XdQv-00076W-Pz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:57:45 -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 EAA28962; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 04:57:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XdQs-0007XX-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:57:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XdQs-0007XU-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:57:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XdQD-000705-Ox; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:57:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XdPa-0006zi-P4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:56:22 -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 EAA28948 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 04:56:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XdPX-0007XF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:56:19 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XdPX-0007XC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:56:19 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19XdPY-0001Ff-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 09:56:20 +0100 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent systems To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" 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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 09:56:20 +0100 >> 1. If consent can be "expressed" in some sort of a document or >data structure, that "expression of consent" can be communicated or >moved from the local periphery of the system into the more global core. >Thus, I, my ISP, or my organization, might prepare an "expression of >consent" that states that mail will not be accepted if it exceeds >certain sizes, contains certain elements (such as attachments) or is of >a "commercial" nature. > > >I think an important aspect of such a consent-based system is precisely >that the >sender (or spammer or whoever) MUST NOT BE ABLE TO INQUIRE IN ADVANCE >regarding >what (hypothetically) would and would not be accepted. > I'm not sure that this is necessarily true. It would certainly take the wind out of the "legitimate mass mailers" if it could be shown that they could have ascertained that their mailing was unwanted before they sent it. Equally, knowing in advance that a message with particular characteristics will be blocked need not (of itself) help the spammer in constructing a message that will get through. If we're worried that spammers can deduce the anti-spam function of a system in some way shouldn't we also be concerned that spammers can (a) read this list (b) freely download widely used spamtools? I believe that your objection may be answered by having some sort of "scope" field in a consent expression. You can choose to set the scope of your expression to be (say) "local" which might be equvalent to configuring your MUA or MDA. You might choose to set it "organisational" in which case your expression might be propagated to your firms (ISP?) mail system. Only a "global" scope for expression has any of the risk that you're worried about, and only then if the expression includes filtering criteria explicitly, rather than references to "message classification" engines which an arbitary entity won't necessarily have access to. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 05:00:10 2003 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 FAA29038 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 05:00:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XdSp-0007Ee-DD for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:59:43 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h628xhaC027806 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 04:59:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XdSp-0007EP-A7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:59:43 -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 EAA29018; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 04:59:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XdSm-0007a3-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:59:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XdSl-0007a0-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:59:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XdS9-00077i-Ec; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:59:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XdRz-00077I-6K for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:58:51 -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 EAA28995 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 04:58:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XdRw-0007Zj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:58:48 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XdRv-0007Zg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:58:47 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19XdRw-0001iQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 09:58:48 +0100 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent systems (correction) To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" 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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 09:58:48 +0100 "(b) freely download widely used spamtools?" of course I meant "anti-spam tools" -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 06:47:37 2003 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 GAA01252 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 06:47:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xf8p-0001pd-1k for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 06:47:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62AlBcj007036 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 06:47:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xf8o-0001pO-VD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 06:47:10 -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 GAA01237; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 06:47:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xf8k-0000z3-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 06:47:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xf8k-0000z0-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 06:47:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xf8f-0001nM-Lp; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 06:47:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xf86-0001ma-6q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 06:46:26 -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 GAA01224 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 06:46:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xf82-0000yJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 06:46:22 -0400 Received: from usergg026.dsl.pipex.com ([62.190.174.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xf81-0000xb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 06:46:21 -0400 Received: from cenderis.demon.co.uk ([62.49.17.254]) by usergg026.dsl.pipex.com via TCP (with SMTP (internal)) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:40:32 +0100 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam References: <004401c34024$36a30700$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> From: Bruce Stephens In-Reply-To: <004401c34024$36a30700$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> (Bob Wyman's message of "Tue, 1 Jul 2003 18:57:57 -0400") Message-ID: <84adbxtdns.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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:40:23 +0100 "Bob Wyman" writes: > Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >> Would XrML - eXtensible rights Markup Language >> (http://www.xrml.org) or OASIS Rights Language be >> a suitable language for consent? > Once you get past all the obvious and boring objections to the > use of XML for something like this, "Yes" these methods would serve as a > good base. There isn't anything special about granting someone rights to > send you mail. You just need to be able to identify what rights can be > granted, what terms and conditions are relevant to the grants, etc. > Then, create the extensions to something like XrML and you're done. At > that point, you've got to deal with more mundane issues... Like: what do > you do with grants once you've got them? How do you distribute them? Do > you embed them in messages? Do you allow creation of tokens or proxies > as "small" versions of the larger documents? Etc... From the point of view of effectiveness on spam control, it's probably worth distinguishing two classes of features that might appear in such consent declarations. There are the relatively easy things: whether I accept HTML attachements, size of email, etc. In general, those things which can be checked (and therefore enforced) automatically. Then there are the things that (alas) don't seem to be automatically enforceable: for example that I won't accept any commercial email, that I won't accept any commercial email except about getting larger, firmer mortgages for septic tanks. The former would be useful, but I'm doubtful that it would have much of an impact on spam. The latter seems to me to rely on the sender accurately tagging their messages according to content---possibly that would happen often enough that it would be worthwhile, but I'm not sure that it would. [...] _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 08:04:57 2003 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 IAA08690 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:04:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XgLY-00066f-F6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:04:28 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62C4OPk023467 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:04:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XgLY-00066Q-Bm for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:04:24 -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 IAA08628; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:04:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XgLX-00037O-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:04:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XgLW-00037L-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:04:22 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XgLB-00062s-8j; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:04:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XgKq-00061P-LN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:03:40 -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 IAA08475 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:03:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XgKp-00035K-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:03:39 -0400 Received: from mxsmta01.inithost.com ([209.235.30.103] helo=mxsmta01.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XgKo-00035E-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:03:38 -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 <20030702120528.BRAY6624.mxsmta01.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:05:28 -0400 Message-ID: <3F02CA1F.2020905@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: bob@wyman.us, "'Kee Hinckley'" , "'Barry Shein'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Warning people of "intent to send" large quantities of email References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701203350.00bd2df8@std5.imagineis.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701203350.00bd2df8@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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:03:43 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I doubt any kind of legislative action will work. It is too easy to get a provider "off shore" and spam from that provider. I also don't believe for a moment that clearinghouses will work well for a number of reasons. It is just too easy and cheap for me (metaphorically speaking) to move from one service provider to another. In my mind there are two solutions for the problem. One is to get away from flat rate pricing or make it expensive - you need to change the economics of sending out 1,000,000 emails. The other is to solve the problem at the terminus of the email. FWIW, Chuck Wegrzyn In my mind the only solution for this problem is to handle it at terminus of the email connection. Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > At 05:48 PM 7/1/2003 -0400, Bob Wyman wrote: > >> It has been suggested that folk like the FTC should "talk with spam >> filtering companies" prior to sending out large quantities of mail -- >> even if that mail is unquestionably "non-spam." This is easy to say. >> However, it isn't obvious to me who these "spam filter companies" are. >> If I was going to send out a few hundred thousand legitimate messages >> sometime next week, who would I warn? How would I contact them? >> It seems to me that if we have a system that relies on people >> talking with each other, then we need to put in place some mechanism so >> that they can find each other to begin the discussions. >> * Should we have a mailing list to which people can send notices >> of "intent to send" large quantities of mail? >> * If you are warning someone, what form should the warning take? >> Should it include a sample message? Should it include the headers that >> you will be sending? Should it include information on the number of >> messages that you'll send? How about providing information concerning >> the time of day that the message will be sent? >> * Is there a place for standards on how such warnings should be >> issued? If so, who should draft and promulgate such a standard? >> * Should there be third-party "judges" established that will >> have the time, patience and skills to determine whether planned email >> blasts are legitimate? If so, who should these judges be? > > > One of the anti-spam sites should probably do that or perhaps the > Network Abuse Clearing House. Another idea is that a site like > (http://www.the-carrot-and-the-stick.com/) that maintains a whitelist > of ISPS that might be sending large amounts of mail but are not spam. > Or perhaps its time to create a new central anti-spam site with this > info. I have been advocating before that we should think about > creating a site on Email Standards similar to the Web Standards > Project (www.webstandards.org). This may be something fit for such > project. > > 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 Wed Jul 2 08:23:39 2003 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 IAA10379 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:23:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xgdj-0006fz-07 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:23:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62CNAow025657 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:23:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xgdi-0006fk-TM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:23:10 -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 IAA10337; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:23:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xgdh-0003hC-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:23:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xgdh-0003h7-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:23:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XgdZ-0006dm-1U; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:23:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xgch-0006d1-0m for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:22:07 -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 IAA10252 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:22:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xgcf-0003es-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:22:05 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xgce-0003el-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:22:04 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19Xgcc-000219-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:22:02 +0100 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" 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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:22:02 +0100 > >From the point of view of effectiveness on spam control, it's probably > worth distinguishing two classes of features that might appear in such > consent declarations. > > There are the relatively easy things: whether I accept HTML > attachements, size of email, etc. In general, those things which can > be checked (and therefore enforced) automatically. > > Then there are the things that (alas) don't seem to be automatically > enforceable: for example that I won't accept any commercial email, > that I won't accept any commercial email except about getting larger, > firmer mortgages for septic tanks. > > The former would be useful, but I'm doubtful that it would have much > of an impact on spam. The latter seems to me to rely on the sender > accurately tagging their messages according to content---possibly that > would happen often enough that it would be worthwhile, but I'm not > sure that it would. I'm not sure about this, there seems to me (at the most general) to be only one class of things that need be asserted in a consent expression: How this message is classified by some engine. Your second class seems to me to be the sort of thing that's routinely handled by content-filters (imperfectly, I grant you). So rather than saying: 1. message has html => noconsent 2. message mentions 'septic tank enhancement' => consent 3. message is from grandma => consent 4. message has valid consent token => consent 5. message has blacklisted source IP => noconsent etc ... You might say something more like positive_test(name_of_engine_1, engineargs, message) => noconsent positive_test(name_of_engine_2, engineargs, message) => consent etc... So your consent expression is a bunch of assertions which can be evaluated at a policy-enforcement-agent if it has access to the classification engines you specify. Might be something like: positive_test("spamassassin-like-engine", "version>2.50" "com.connectisl.myusername.ruleset", "level>5.0", message) => noconsent positive_test("recipient_whitelist", "jrk@merseymail.com", message) => consent Are consent expressions only a means of carrying information from a recipient-entity to a policy-enforcement-entity? Or are they for publishing a statement to the world at large? Are sending systems (paid for by the sender) likely to do policy-enforcement for a remote recipient? Intermediate systems? Would a global expression still have utility even if not acted on globally (as a record of the recipients policy)? Also, does a consent expression creator need means of determining capabilities of the enforcement-agent that's the target of the consent-expression? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 09:00:08 2003 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 JAA14352 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 09:00:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XhD1-0007id-JQ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:59:40 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62CxdgH029665 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:59:39 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XhD1-0007iO-GN for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:59:39 -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 IAA14299; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:59:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XhCz-00059A-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:59:38 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XhCz-000597-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:59:37 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XhCP-0007fS-OV; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:59:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XhBv-0007eq-PP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:58:31 -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 IAA14244 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:58:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XhBu-000588-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:58:30 -0400 Received: from twix.hotpop.com ([204.57.55.70]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XhBt-00055c-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:58:29 -0400 Received: from hotpop.com (kubrick.hotpop.com [204.57.55.16]) by twix.hotpop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EB6DB449DFD for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:57:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from speakeasy.org (dsl092-168-196.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.92.168.196]) by smtp-2.hotpop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC0DB1800CF; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:57:57 +0000 (UTC) From: Dave Aronson To: "Jon Kyme" , "ASRG" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200307020901.07489.dja2003@hotpop.com> X-HotPOP: ----------------------------------------------- Sent By HotPOP.com FREE Email Get your FREE POP email at www.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, 2 Jul 2003 09:01:07 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Jon Kyme" wrote: > Are consent expressions only a means of carrying information from a > recipient-entity to a policy-enforcement-entity? Or are they for > publishing a statement to the world at large? IMHO primarily the former, and almost certainly that will be developed before the latter. The latter need very careful consideration, as it could tip your hand to a spammer re how to spoof his way onto your whitelist. Maybe if only NO-consent rules are published? > Are sending systems (paid for by the sender) likely to do > policy-enforcement for a remote recipient? Methinks not. Too much complexity added for too little benefit. Heck, we have a hard enough time getting people not to post in HTML, even on some lists of intelligent and clueful people. > Would a global expression still have utility even if not acted on > globally (as a record of the recipients policy)? It could deflate claims of "we send this only to people we really think will be interested in it". Other than that, I see no use. > Also, does a consent expression creator need means of determining > capabilities of the enforcement-agent that's the target of the > consent-expression? Absolutely. He needs to know what's possible, lest he waste his time writing rules that won't be enforced (not that that stops legislators). Furthermore, he may need to know details of just how to state it, such as the syntax for a boolean match. -- 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 Wed Jul 2 10:33:18 2003 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 KAA24439 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 10:33:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XifD-0004lm-Vd for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 10:32:52 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62EWpRs018330 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 10:32:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XifD-0004lZ-S8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 10:32:51 -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 KAA24328; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 10:32:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XifA-0000vR-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 10:32:48 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xif3-0000uU-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 10:32:41 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XieP-0004i5-S8; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 10:32:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XidS-0004gs-K1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 10:31:02 -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 KAA23944 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 10:30:57 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XidN-0000kn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 10:30:57 -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 19XidJ-0000k0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 10:30:53 -0400 Received: (cpmta 4965 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2003 07:30:42 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.72) with SMTP; 2 Jul 2003 07:30:42 -0700 X-Sent: 2 Jul 2003 14:30:42 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Wed, 2 Jul 2003 09:29:58 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 09:58:47 -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] Remote mailing Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 02 Jul 2003 09:58:47 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> 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? Good examples of places where you just don't have much choice is when you're in a sidewalk Internet cafe, or a public library, an airport waiting lounge kiosk, or a cruise ship Internet cafe. Or you could be at a customer site and need to mail, but need to do it (frequently the case) through one of their systems. Big deal? Well, it IS a "big deal" if those mails simply can't be sent, or get trashed and are never 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 Wed Jul 2 10:55:43 2003 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 KAA25956 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 10:55:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xj0u-0005WB-Vp for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 10:55:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62EtGwq021205 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 10:55:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xj0u-0005Vw-S0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 10:55:16 -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 KAA25931; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 10:55:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xj0s-0001Zz-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 10:55:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xj0r-0001Zv-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 10:55:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xj0f-0005Sf-6E; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 10:55:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xizr-0005Rw-NT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 10:54:11 -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 KAA25875 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 10:54:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xizp-0001YQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 10:54:09 -0400 Received: from usergg026.dsl.pipex.com ([62.190.174.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xizn-0001Y8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 10:54:08 -0400 Received: from cenderis.demon.co.uk ([62.49.17.254]) by usergg026.dsl.pipex.com via TCP (with SMTP (internal)) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:53:33 +0100 To: "ASRG" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam References: From: Bruce Stephens In-Reply-To: (Jon Kyme's message of "Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:22:02 +0100") Message-ID: <84ptkt3rqf.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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:53:12 +0100 "Jon Kyme" writes: [...] >> The former would be useful, but I'm doubtful that it would have much >> of an impact on spam. The latter seems to me to rely on the sender >> accurately tagging their messages according to content---possibly that >> would happen often enough that it would be worthwhile, but I'm not >> sure that it would. > > I'm not sure about this, there seems to me (at the most general) to be > only one class of things that need be asserted in a consent expression: How > this message is classified by some engine. Your second class seems to me to > be the sort of thing that's routinely handled by content-filters > (imperfectly, I grant you). > > So rather than saying: > 1. message has html => noconsent > 2. message mentions 'septic tank enhancement' => consent > 3. message is from grandma => consent > 4. message has valid consent token => consent > 5. message has blacklisted source IP => noconsent > etc ... > > You might say something more like > positive_test(name_of_engine_1, engineargs, message) => noconsent > positive_test(name_of_engine_2, engineargs, message) => consent > etc... I guess someone could standardise this (using whatever language they wanted), and there are some kinds of content filter (probably quite simple things---the sort of thing that SIEVE can do, say) that we could standardise on. That might be useful. It's not a solution to spam, though, because some things really are things that can't be checked automatically, so the content filtering will be imperfect. And (if it were to be standardised) we can expect it to become more and more imperfect. [...] _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 11:03:50 2003 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 LAA26222 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:03:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xj8l-0006As-QG for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:03:24 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62F3Nbu023725 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:03:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xj8l-0006Aa-MY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:03:23 -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 LAA26204; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:03:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xj8j-0001ip-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:03:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xj8i-0001im-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:03:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xj8P-000649-7p; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:03:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xj7Z-0005sI-Ct for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 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 LAA26179 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:02:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xj7W-0001ho-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:02:06 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=mr10.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xj7W-0001hi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:02:06 -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 ACF81443; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:02:04 -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 AJX73338; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:02:02 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Consent systems Message-ID: <001c01c340aa$e6c739e0$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 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: 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, 2 Jul 2003 11:02:04 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Gordon Peterson wrote: > I think an important aspect of such a consent-based system=20 > is precisely that the sender (or spammer or whoever) MUST=20 > NOT BE ABLE TO INQUIRE IN ADVANCE regarding what (hypothetically)=20 > would and would not be accepted. I assume that any consent based system would provide you with a means to determine just how widely your expressions of consent would be diseminated. Thus, if you really don't want people to know what you consent to, you would be able to ensure that they are left wondering. Bob asks: "Gordon, can I send you mail?" Gordon says: "I won't tell you. Try it and see." Bob says: "I sent you mail, but got no reply. Does that mean you're ignoring it, or was it rejected?" Gordon says: "I won't tell you..." Bob says: "Is this a Turing test?" > Actually, the solution I like best [...] periodically a=20 > "digest" of suspected spam messages (say, one or two=20 > lines each) is sent in an E-mail to the intended=20 > recipient, so that they can vet them in a sort of triage > and ask their ISP to move false positives back into their > 'to be delivered' queue. While this may be a procedure that *you* are willing to endure, I suggest that the average email user would find it much too burdensome. It should also be noted that if any extraction of the incoming mail is performed (i.e. "one or two lines each") you will inevitably have problems since it may not be possible to ascertain the real purpose of the message from the extract and it is also likely the spammers will adjust their message composition style to take into account the algorithm for constructing an extract. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 11:18:45 2003 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 LAA26645 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:18:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XjNB-00070F-VI for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:18:18 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62FIHqd026913 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:18:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XjNB-000700-QS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:18:17 -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 LAA26626; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:18:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XjNA-00026m-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:18:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XjNA-00026j-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:18:16 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XjMu-0006tH-OP; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:18:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XjM0-0006sm-7O for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:17:04 -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 LAA26572 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:17:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XjLz-00025Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:17:03 -0400 Received: from www.gamerz.net ([66.92.144.25] helo=play.gamerz.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XjLy-00025U-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:17:02 -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 h62FH2pf005593 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168 bits) verified NO) for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:17:02 -0400 Received: (from rrognlie@localhost) by play.gamerz.net (Switch-3.1.0/Switch-3.1.0/Submit) id h62FH2o2005592 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:17:02 -0400 From: Richard Rognlie To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Remote mailing Message-ID: <20030702151702.GJ20781@gamerz.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:17:02 -0400 I am recovering from recently spending the last ~4 years on the road as a Sendmail, Inc. consultant. One of the ongoing issues was "how do I send mail as richard@sendmail.com from XXXX"? One way I worked around it was to setup SMTP AUTH on my home email server. so... as long as I could get to port 587 on that box (or port 25, but I *forced* AUTH on port 587) I could send mail. This worked most of the time. Even when earthlink (and then others) started restricting outbound port 25. They'd often keep 587 open (thankfully). The times it didn't work were when I was on a client site and they were blocking outbound 25/587 (if not from their MTAs). In these cases, I'd fall back to an ssh-tunnel. And if the client blocked outbound 22... well... I was on my own for a bit. This was "good enough". And reasonably secure (SMTP AUTH + STARTTLS +/- SSH). -- / \__ | 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 Wed Jul 2 11:27:43 2003 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 LAA26937 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:27:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XjVr-0007EG-LU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:27:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62FRFCT027782 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:27:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XjVr-0007E1-HD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:27:15 -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 LAA26916; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:27:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XjVq-0002Ed-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:27:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XjVq-0002Ea-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:27:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XjVc-00077j-QX; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:27:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XjUr-00077T-Fw for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:26:13 -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 LAA26867 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:26:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XjUq-0002Dz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:26:12 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XjUq-0002Dw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:26:12 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19XjUp-0005pA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:26:11 +0100 In-Reply-To: <84ptkt3rqf.fsf@cenderis.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" 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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:26:11 +0100 > > > > You might say something more like > > positive_test(name_of_engine_1, engineargs, message) => noconsent > > positive_test(name_of_engine_2, engineargs, message) => consent > > etc... > > I guess someone could standardise this (using whatever language they > wanted), and there are some kinds of content filter (probably quite > simple things---the sort of thing that SIEVE can do, say) that we > could standardise on. That might be useful. Well no, this isn't really the kind of thing that sieve ( http://www.cyrusoft.com/sieve/ ) is for - as I understand it. Indeed, somebody could standardise this - if somebody wanted to make it simple for MUA to talk to policy enforcement agents. > > It's not a solution to spam, though, because some things really are > things that can't be checked automatically, so the content filtering > will be imperfect. And (if it were to be standardised) we can expect > it to become more and more imperfect. > No - it isn't THE "Solution to Spam". However, you can plug A "solution to spam" right into it. positive_test(foolproof_spam_detector, engineargs, message) => noconsent It's one way of looking at part of a consent framework. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 11:41:14 2003 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 LAA27254 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:41:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xjiw-0007q4-Pv for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:40:46 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62Fekbs030126 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:40:46 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xjiw-0007pp-K1 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 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 LAA27238; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:40:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xjiv-0002Rc-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:40:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xjiv-0002RZ-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:40:45 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XjiE-0007m5-1Z; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:40:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xjhf-0007lA-S7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 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 LAA27219 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:39:24 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xjhe-0002Qe-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:39:26 -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 19Xjhe-0002QW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:39:26 -0400 Received: (cpmta 17044 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2003 08:39:24 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.66) with SMTP; 2 Jul 2003 08:39:24 -0700 X-Sent: 2 Jul 2003 15:39:24 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Wed, 2 Jul 2003 10:37:02 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:05:50 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE: [Asrg] Consent systems To: , , In-Reply-To: <001c01c340aa$e6c739e0$640aa8c0@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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:05:50 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> I think an important aspect of such a consent-based system >> is precisely that the sender (or spammer or whoever) MUST >> NOT BE ABLE TO INQUIRE IN ADVANCE regarding what (hypothetically) >> would and would not be accepted. > I assume that any consent based system would provide you with a >means to determine just how widely your expressions of consent would be >diseminated. Thus, if you really don't want people to know what you >consent to, you would be able to ensure that they are left wondering. > > Bob asks: "Gordon, can I send you mail?" > Gordon says: "I won't tell you. Try it and see." > Bob says: "I sent you mail, but got no reply. Does that > mean you're ignoring it, or was it rejected?" > Gordon says: "I won't tell you..." > Bob says: "Is this a Turing test?" That's not the situation. If someone asks ME, then I can find out who they are and decide whether I want to tell them (and/or what special provisions I *might* be willing to make to accommodate them). What I don't want is something where some mindless bot at my ISP tells all requesting spammers just what it would take for their spam to slip through my filter. If someone is going to send me E-mail, and hasn't got an established relationship with me, then I want it in plain, compatible, efficient ASCII text (at least INITIALLY)... no exceptions. And I'd like that to be the accepted standard, for ALL unestablished E-mail relationships. >> Actually, the solution I like best [...] periodically a >> "digest" of suspected spam messages (say, one or two >> lines each) is sent in an E-mail to the intended >> recipient, so that they can vet them in a sort of triage >> and ask their ISP to move false positives back into their >> 'to be delivered' queue. > While this may be a procedure that *you* are willing to endure, >I suggest that the average email user would find it much too burdensome. I think it's a safe bet that most any filtering or triage scheme is going to create at least some false positives on mail that in fact isn't spam. Instead of just trashing it without a trace, I think that most users would like to at least have the option of a summary of some kind of what things the system thinks they probably don't want... so that they can at least scan down the list to see if there's anything that looks like it was incorrectly judged. Especially in the case of a sender-per-sender permission list, at the beginning this will help immensely in getting the permission list initially set up. Choices for each message on the "held" list might include: 1) go ahead and send me this one. 2) send me this one, and all future messages like this from this sender. 3) delete the message 4) leave it in the held list for now The idea is to quickly get a feel for what's there and to rapidly get familiar/repeated stuff so it sails right through, while minimizing the time one takes to blow off the stuff that's pretty obviously spam. >It should also be noted that if any extraction of the incoming mail is >performed (i.e. "one or two lines each") you will inevitably have >problems since it may not be possible to ascertain the real purpose of >the message from the extract and it is also likely the spammers will >adjust their message composition style to take into account the >algorithm for constructing an extract. I'm not talking about extracting the content of the mail... I was thinking more of a summary of subject/from/replyto/etc and perhaps any other useful indicators that might be extracted (one useful one would be a short indicator of why the message was held instead of being delivered, such as the content filter picking up on hgh spam, or getrichquick, or Nigerian-type spam, or Viagra/sex enhancement, or mortgage spam, or HTML-burdened, or obscured to evade filtering, or whatever. That indicator, coupled with who supposedly sent it and what subject line they used, would probably help in rapidly performing the necessary triage. Usually a nondescript/unfamiliar/"lure"-type subject combined with an unknown sender, ALONG WITH a clue about what generated the spam flag from the message content, is all one probably needs to concur that it's spam and they don't want or need to see it. (But this is ALSO why the filtering doesn't want to be done at multiple places in the Net, but at one place... probably upon arrival at the To: destination domain... so that they can generate and send the "held/suspect items" list every once in a while.) 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 Jul 2 11:44:41 2003 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 LAA27448 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:44:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XjmH-000880-Co for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:44:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62FiDEe031238 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:44:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XjmH-00087l-2R for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:44:13 -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 LAA27432; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:44:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XjmF-0002X2-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:44:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XjmF-0002Wz-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:44:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xjm4-00081D-Iw; Wed, 02 Jul 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 19Xjlo-00080P-9b for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:43:44 -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 LAA27372 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:43:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xjln-0002W5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:43:43 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.198.35]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xjlm-0002VY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:43:42 -0400 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with ESMTP id <20030702154312013008pbdde>; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:43:12 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (unknown [10.0.0.108]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2726C57AB for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:50:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F02FD88.6040209@zemos.net> From: Philip Miller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: Feature selection for Bayesian filters Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 02 Jul 2003 11:43:04 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cormac O'Brien wrote: >What type of features do people use for bayesian filters? Most people talk >about looking at word tokens. Does anyone use character tokens? I would be >interested to know whether using words or using characters would give the >best filtering results. > By character tokens, do you mean each individual character of messages? It's an interesing idea to simplify the filtering of bloated HTML spam with excessive numbers of a images and colored text, but that can already be filtered easily. For spam that uses normal words and only mentions a URL or email address once, this is not likely to be effective. The only difference in character distribution that would really be noticeable would be an increased proportion of uppercase characters noted by Graham. Another alternative would be for filter users or developers to dump in any non-word 'feature' they can think of that would have a high probability of spam or not and ask their bayesian filters to consider it along with the normal content tokens. From what I've heard, there is a way to use SpamAssassin rules as meta-token in their bayesian engine rather just to create a score. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 11:47:15 2003 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 LAA27878 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:47:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xjob-0000Hu-7D for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:46:47 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62FkbRf001098 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:46:37 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xjob-0000Hd-45 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:46:37 -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 LAA27723; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:46:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XjoZ-0002bq-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:46:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XjoZ-0002bm-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:46:35 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xjo7-0008Mc-NA; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:46:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XQY3-00029T-FS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:12:15 -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 NAA07718 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:34:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XP0W-0006Uf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 13:33:32 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XP0V-0006Uc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 13:33:31 -0400 Received: from [63.186.224.130] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2502565; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 13:33:30 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629012311.00bd5e38@pop.pocketmail.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629012311.00bd5e38@pop.pocketmail.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Two ways to look at 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: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:19:01 -0400 At 1:37 AM -0400 6/29/03, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >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. I've been thinking about this every since Barry posted is "call every phone" mail. And it seems to me that there is another way to look at solving the problem. Or rather, not _solving_ the problem, but addressing it. How about technical solutions (and DCC is an example of this) for detecting spam in progress. In other words. When some set of machines start spewing millions of messages, why shouldn't there be a dynamically early alert-system for detecting that. Perhaps even one that could be installed on gateway machines--not just mail servers? -- 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 Jul 2 11:58:46 2003 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 LAA28518 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:58:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xjzu-0001l9-SL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:58:18 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62FwIfx006757 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:58:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xjzu-0001ku-O9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:58:18 -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 LAA28466; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:58:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xjzt-0002ux-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:58:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xjzt-0002uu-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:58:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xjzd-0001aU-OB; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:58:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xjyr-0001Z7-78 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:57:13 -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 LAA28410 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:57:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xjyq-0002rV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:57:12 -0400 Received: from 000-257-002.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.243.209] helo=68.27.243.209 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xjyn-0002rH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:57:10 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702115237.00bc8158@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: 6. Solutions - Longterm - Replacing SMTP (Re: [Asrg] Bogus reasoning) 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, 02 Jul 2003 11:56:51 -0400 At 10:23 PM 7/1/2003 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: >[..] > >Personally, I don't think that *any* solution that to be effective requires >re-engineering the entire world's E-mail infrastructure is a practical >solution >today. There's just too much of it, in too many places, and with too little >onsite technical expertise in many of those places. >[..] However, should we be considering a solution that replaces the email infrastructure as a long term answer to spam? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 12:02:14 2003 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 MAA28732 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:02:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xk3G-0002I2-NZ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:01:47 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62G1kOW008796 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:01:46 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xk3G-0002Hn-HH for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:01:46 -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 MAA28698; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:01:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xk3F-0002yi-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:01:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xk3E-0002yf-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:01:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xk2h-00027Z-Rt; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:01:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xk2Q-0001wd-Ra for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:00:55 -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 MAA28631 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:00:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xk2P-0002xv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:00:53 -0400 Received: from 000-257-002.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.243.209] helo=68.27.243.209 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xk2L-0002xp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:00:52 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702114718.00ba8ab8@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] 2a. Spam Measurement - SenderBase.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, 02 Jul 2003 11:47:19 -0400 At 06:20 AM 7/2/2003 -0200, Kurt Magnusson wrote: >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >..... >>>At 05:13 PM 7/1/2003 -0400, Olson, Margaret wrote: >>>their TV ratings. We receive data feeds from over 6,000 domains >......... >>>We then parse this data by sending domain and IP address and scale up >>>our estimates based on our estimate of the % of email >....... >>>>From: Yakov Shafranovich I recently ran across this website, >>>>www.senderbase.com, >........ >>>>seems to be a collection of spam statistics split up by domain/IP,etc. > >It is really a pity, that they did not parse the URL:s used in the spams >as well. Then we really would have had a good picture of what real >spam domains there is. I think SpamCop keeps a database of links but I don't know if its public. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 12:04:59 2003 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 MAA28905 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:04:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xk5w-0002ew-Nb for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:04:32 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62G4Wku010216 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:04:32 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xk5w-0002eh-Jj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:04:32 -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 MAA28834; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:04:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xk5v-00031z-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:04:31 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xk5u-00031v-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:04:30 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xk5R-0002Wi-RP; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:04:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xk58-0002Uf-K0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:03:42 -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 MAA28786 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:03:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xk57-00030b-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:03:41 -0400 Received: from 000-257-002.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.243.209] helo=68.27.243.209 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xk55-00030X-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:03:40 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702114015.00b9f008@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 - Turing Tests and the Blind Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 02 Jul 2003 12:03:19 -0400 This News.com article (http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-1022814.html) discussed a problem with using visual Turing tests - the blind cannot use it. ---snip--- Efforts to create tests aimed at distinguishing humans from machines go back decades, with the most famous formulation of the problem posed in 1950 by the English mathematician and World War II "Enigma" code breaker Alan Turing. Turing's controversial hypothesis was that a machine could be defined as "intelligent" if a questioner could be fooled into believing it was a person. Visual tests in a sense turn that theory on its head, assuming that a machine is defined by its inability to perform a task that is easy for most humans to accomplish. The increasingly popular visual test, and the difficulty of using current work-arounds, has raised enough hackles among advocates for the disabled that working groups within the World Wide Web Consortium's (W3C) Web Accessibility Initiative have begun discussions on how to standardize an alternative. Two WAI working groups are hashing out proposals to guide Web sites in designing blind-friendly bot repellants, and the WAI hopes to address the issue in the next working draft of its Web Accessibility Guidelines, Version 2.0, which is due by year's end. So far, published working drafts of the guidelines are silent on the issue. ----snip---- As Vernon pointed out previously we do not know for sure if these tests cannot be passed by a machine. Also, nothing can stop spammers from hiring real people to do the task. The financial difference would be negligible. This raises the issue of whether the tests are needed in the first place. C/R systems also fall under this issue. It would be worthwhile to contact the W3C in order to keep abreast of any standards they make in the area. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 12:14:47 2003 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 MAA29287 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:14:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkFP-0003Lu-Uh for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:14:20 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62GEJuV012880 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:14:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkFP-0003Lf-Ra for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:14:19 -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 MAA29236; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:14:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkFO-0003Ef-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:14:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkFN-0003Ec-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:14:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkF7-0003Gi-ER; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:14:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkET-0003Fx-FV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:13:21 -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 MAA29189 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:13:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkES-0003D0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:13:20 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkER-0003Aw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:13:19 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:12:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:00:32 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'gep2@terabites.com'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: 6. Solutions - Longterm - Replacing SMTP (Re: [Asrg] Bogus re asoning) 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: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:00:31 -0400 There have been a couple of such proposals made here: Advance Mail Transfer Protocol: http://www.danisch.de/tmp/draft_mtp.txt Adaptive Mail Delivery Protocol: http://www.amdpmail.com/mod/fileman/files/draft-amdp-00.txt This is one particular avenue that may be explored. The charter states: "ASRG will consider the issues of deployment for proposed solutions, emphasizing the investigation of methods that have a realistic chance of wide-scale deployment." Therefore, I do suggest that these solutions should not be the primary focus of the group. There are a number of short and medium term solutions that can significantly affect the problem. The question then becomes if what is left of the problem at that point warrants such infrastructure-changing solutions. > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 11:57 AM > To: gep2@terabites.com; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: 6. Solutions - Longterm - Replacing SMTP (Re: [Asrg] > Bogus reasoning) > > > At 10:23 PM 7/1/2003 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > >[..] > > > >Personally, I don't think that *any* solution that to be effective > >requires re-engineering the entire world's E-mail > infrastructure is a > >practical solution today. There's just too much of it, in too many > >places, and with too little onsite technical expertise in > many of those > >places. [..] > > However, should we be considering a solution that replaces the email > infrastructure as a long term answer to spam? > > 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 Wed Jul 2 12:15:47 2003 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 MAA29492 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:15:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkGK-0003ii-6s for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:15:20 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62GFGdG014294 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:15:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkGK-0003iT-22 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:15:16 -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 MAA29406; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:15:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkGI-0003Gz-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:15:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkGI-0003Gw-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:15:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkG6-0003ZQ-5u; Wed, 02 Jul 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 19XkFF-0003Jp-EU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:14:09 -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 MAA29221 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:14:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkFE-0003EB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:14:08 -0400 Received: from 000-257-002.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.243.209] helo=68.27.243.209 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkFB-0003Dx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:14:06 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702121302.00b9f008@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Kee Hinckley From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 6. Solutions - Detection (was Re: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam) Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629012311.00bd5e38@pop.pocketmail.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030629012311.00bd5e38@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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:13:40 -0400 At 01:19 PM 7/1/2003 -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote: >At 1:37 AM -0400 6/29/03, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >>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. > >I've been thinking about this every since Barry posted is "call every >phone" mail. And it seems to me that there is another way to look at >solving the problem. Or rather, not _solving_ the problem, but addressing it. > >How about technical solutions (and DCC is an example of this) for >detecting spam in progress. In other words. When some set of machines >start spewing millions of messages, why shouldn't there be a dynamically >early alert-system for detecting that. Perhaps even one that could be >installed on gateway machines--not just mail servers? Take a look at DShield.org _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 12:24:40 2003 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 MAA29931 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:24:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkOz-0004QF-RD for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:24:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62GODTk016994 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:24:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkOz-0004Q1-OT for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:24:13 -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 MAA29924; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:24:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkOy-0003VT-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:24:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkOx-0003VQ-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:24:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkOn-0004Ms-7Q; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:24:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkOL-0004MS-OY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:23:33 -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 MAA29901 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:23:30 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkOK-0003Un-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:23:32 -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 19XkOJ-0003Ui-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:23:31 -0400 Received: (cpmta 5454 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2003 09:23:29 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.64) with SMTP; 2 Jul 2003 09:23:29 -0700 X-Sent: 2 Jul 2003 16:23:29 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:22:05 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:50:53 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: 6. Solutions - Longterm - Replacing SMTP (Re: [Asrg] Bogus reasoning) To: Yakov Shafranovich , gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702115237.00bc8158@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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:50:53 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>Personally, I don't think that *any* solution that to be effective requires >>re-engineering the entire world's E-mail infrastructure is a practical >>solution >>today. There's just too much of it, in too many places, and with too little >>onsite technical expertise in many of those places. >However, should we be considering a solution that replaces the email >infrastructure as a long term answer to spam? While it might be interesting to blue-sky that, I don't think that discussing it as a serious solution to the spam problem is very sensible. We need something MUCH sooner than that, and I think the only practical way to achieve that is to build it on top of the system we have today. And THAT means it must be incrementally deployable. Stuff that stops senders is nice, but obviously must be deployed universally in order to achieve the goal. Otherwise we'll have a few responsible ISPs whose users (like everyone else) still get slammed with spam, and spam-friendly ISPs who can't be bothered to put the protections in place. It only takes ONE spam-friendly ISP (and they could be ANYWHERE, including some lawless third-world country) as a "safe haven" for the entire world to still get spammed. I personally think that it makes sense to have a recipient-end system (client site, or their ISP) where the effort can be made by those receiving the most direct benefit from the effort, and where they can proceed without having to convince anyone else about their methods. I don't think that there is a single "silver bullet" (wooden stake?) that will instantly stop spam. What's more likely is that we eventually and progressively just put enough sand in their gears that the great majority of them simply give up and decide to take up another career. 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 Jul 2 12:27:42 2003 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 MAA00092 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:27:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkRt-0004cB-K8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:27:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62GRDtd017733 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:27:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkRt-0004bw-H3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:27:13 -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 MAA00084; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:27:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkRs-0003Z2-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:27:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkRr-0003Yz-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:27:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkRh-0004Yj-5j; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:27:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkQj-0004Ul-KQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:26:01 -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 MAA29990 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:25:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkQi-0003Wf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:26:00 -0400 Received: from adsl-67-119-72-241.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net ([67.119.72.241] helo=BLACKCOMB.corp.mailfrontier.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkQh-0003Wb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:25:59 -0400 Received: from royalgorge ([10.1.2.16]) by BLACKCOMB.corp.mailfrontier.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 2 Jul 2003 09:25:57 -0700 Message-ID: <03d701c340b6$9e2a8c80$1002010a@corp.mailfrontier.com> From: "David Koblas" To: , References: Subject: Re: [Asrg] Remote mailing 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 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jul 2003 16:25:57.0676 (UTC) FILETIME=[9E12BEC0:01C340B6] 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, 2 Jul 2003 09:25:57 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Spam at one level is a security problem, it's the allowance of non-validated sender to send messages impersonating other users. Your example is "should a Cisco employee be allow to send a message from anywhere without authenticating against Cisco" implies that Cisco doesn't care who sends messages claiming to be from a Cisco. Easy example, is today sitting at my desk I can originate a message from "John Chambers" letting you know the quarterly earning are great! That's a security problem, the message didn't originate from Cisco nor is this user authenticated... If you're sitting on an airplane, customer site, etc., you should authenticate in to your corporate network or send email via another channel. Hotmail, Yahoo, AOL, etc. all have authentication before you can send email, they can easily stamp, sign or otherwise endorse the message before it's delivered on the network. There is no reason that a MTA or MUA should in the long term allow non-verifiable messages to arrive. It's the responsibly of the sending MTA to stamp/sign a message on outgoing delivery. It's impossible to belive that we can remove spam from the network, but what I want to see is good senders not having to worry about their ability to send email and have it be received (see recent FTC problems). --koblas ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 7:58 AM Subject: [Asrg] Remote mailing > >> 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? > > Good examples of places where you just don't have much choice is when you're in > a sidewalk Internet cafe, or a public library, an airport waiting lounge kiosk, > or a cruise ship Internet cafe. Or you could be at a customer site and need to > mail, but need to do it (frequently the case) through one of their systems. > > Big deal? Well, it IS a "big deal" if those mails simply can't be sent, or get > trashed and are never 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 > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 12:31:41 2003 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 MAA00199 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:31:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkVn-0004oj-2z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:31:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62GVFPG018511 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:31:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkVm-0004oU-W5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:31:15 -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 MAA00171; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:31:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkVl-0003dH-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:31:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkVk-0003dE-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:31:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkVZ-0004i7-2s; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:31:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkVE-0004hW-Ju for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:30:40 -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 MAA00141 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:30:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkVD-0003cm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:30:39 -0400 Received: from 000-257-002.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.243.209] helo=68.27.243.209 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkV9-0003cj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:30:38 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702122608.00b9f008@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: 6. Solutions - Longterm - Replacing SMTP (Re: [Asrg] Bogus reasoning) In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702115237.00bc8158@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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:30:13 -0400 At 11:50 AM 7/2/2003 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > >>Personally, I don't think that *any* solution that to be effective requires > >>re-engineering the entire world's E-mail infrastructure is a practical > >>solution > >>today. There's just too much of it, in too many places, and with too > little > >>onsite technical expertise in many of those places. > > >However, should we be considering a solution that replaces the email > >infrastructure as a long term answer to spam? > >While it might be interesting to blue-sky that, I don't think that >discussing it >as a serious solution to the spam problem is very sensible. We need >something >MUCH sooner than that, and I think the only practical way to achieve that >is to >build it on top of the system we have today. And THAT means it must be >incrementally deployable. >[..] If we are forming a comprehensive plan for killing spam, then we should consider long term solutions as well. We can structure such plan to gradually move the Internet with short term, medium term and long term solutions, all leading to the long term solutions. I do not think any of the short or medium term proposals or approaches can kill spam entirely - even your approach will allow ASCII spam through. To completely kill all spam will require a long term solutions. However, we do not have to worry about a long term solutions right now, we can concentrate on the overall plan and specific short-medium term solutions. >[..] >I don't think that there is a single "silver bullet" (wooden stake?) that >will >instantly stop spam. What's more likely is that we eventually and >progressively >just put enough sand in their gears that the great majority of them simply >give >up and decide to take up another career. >[..] It is very well possible that all of the short and medium term solutions will "put enough sand in their wheels" to stop them. Nevertheless, long term solutions should remain within our ear shot, even if we do not spend as much time on them as on short term stuff. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 12:32:40 2003 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 MAA00263 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:32:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkWi-00051A-Th for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:32:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62GWCxt019282 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:32:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkWi-00050v-PV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:32:12 -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 MAA00236; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:32:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkWh-0003eS-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:32:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkWg-0003eP-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:32:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkWX-0004w2-DQ; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:32:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkVo-0004om-AH for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:31:16 -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 MAA00177 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:31:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkVm-0003dP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:31:15 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkVm-0003dJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:31:14 -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 <20030702163302.FZOZ28645.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:33:02 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0308D8.2080704@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: gep2@terabites.com CC: Yakov Shafranovich , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 6. Solutions - Longterm - Replacing SMTP (Re: [Asrg] Bogus reasoning) 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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:31:20 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit That is exactly what I have been saying, on and off, for the past month or so (when I thought it was wise to stop lurking). The only really solution to the problem is a receiver side solution, whether it happens at the client or the MTA for the user. Chuck Wegrzyn gep2@terabites.com wrote: >>>Personally, I don't think that *any* solution that to be effective requires >>>re-engineering the entire world's E-mail infrastructure is a practical >>>solution >>>today. There's just too much of it, in too many places, and with too little >>>onsite technical expertise in many of those places. >>> >>> > > > >>However, should we be considering a solution that replaces the email >>infrastructure as a long term answer to spam? >> >> > >While it might be interesting to blue-sky that, I don't think that discussing it >as a serious solution to the spam problem is very sensible. We need something >MUCH sooner than that, and I think the only practical way to achieve that is to >build it on top of the system we have today. And THAT means it must be >incrementally deployable. > >Stuff that stops senders is nice, but obviously must be deployed universally in >order to achieve the goal. Otherwise we'll have a few responsible ISPs whose >users (like everyone else) still get slammed with spam, and spam-friendly ISPs >who can't be bothered to put the protections in place. It only takes ONE >spam-friendly ISP (and they could be ANYWHERE, including some lawless >third-world country) as a "safe haven" for the entire world to still get >spammed. > >I personally think that it makes sense to have a recipient-end system (client >site, or their ISP) where the effort can be made by those receiving the most >direct benefit from the effort, and where they can proceed without having to >convince anyone else about their methods. > >I don't think that there is a single "silver bullet" (wooden stake?) that will >instantly stop spam. What's more likely is that we eventually and progressively >just put enough sand in their gears that the great majority of them simply give >up and decide to take up another career. > >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 Wed Jul 2 12:34:40 2003 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 LAA27877 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:47:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xjoe-0000Iy-N1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:46:47 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62FkeJ6001166 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:46:40 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xjoe-0000Ij-Fh for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:46:40 -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 LAA27725; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:46:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XjoZ-0002bt-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:46:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XjoZ-0002bn-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:46:35 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xjo2-0008FZ-TI; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:46:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XQWn-00029T-Vl for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:11:08 -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 NAA07720 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:34:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XP0Q-0006UZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 13:33:27 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XP0Q-0006UW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 13:33:26 -0400 Received: from [63.186.224.130] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2502562; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 13:33:26 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <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> <20030630022018.A2266@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: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:57:22 -0400 At 2:20 AM -0400 6/30/03, Walter Dnes wrote: >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. But in the case of you sending a purchase question to a five companies, it's the *company* that cares most about getting the message delivered. You don't care much if one doesn't make it. They 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 Wed Jul 2 12:34:42 2003 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 MAA00384 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:34:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkYh-000591-Nx for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:34:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62GYF3B019769 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:34:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkYh-00058m-K3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:34:15 -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 MAA00330; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:34:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkYg-0003gd-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:34:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkYf-0003ga-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:34:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkYT-00055k-Gy; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:34:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkXu-000555-85 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:33:26 -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 MAA00297 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:33:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkXs-0003fb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:33:24 -0400 Received: from 000-257-002.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.243.209] helo=68.27.243.209 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkXq-0003fR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:33:23 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702123150.00bc8158@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "David Koblas" , , From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 1. Problem Inventory (Re: [Asrg] Remote mailing) In-Reply-To: <03d701c340b6$9e2a8c80$1002010a@corp.mailfrontier.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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:33:04 -0400 At 09:25 AM 7/2/2003 -0700, David Koblas wrote: >Spam at one level is a security problem, it's the allowance of non-validated >sender to send messages impersonating other users. >[..] Which arises from the design of SMTP and the general openness of the Internet as it was developed originally. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 12:35:38 2003 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 MAA00424 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:35:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkZc-0005GJ-7f for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:35:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62GZCqe020221 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:35:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkZc-0005G4-4n for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:35:12 -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 MAA00413; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:35:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkZa-0003hh-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:35:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkZa-0003hd-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:35:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkZQ-0005Cz-M4; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:35:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkZ1-0005CS-Tv for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:34:35 -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 MAA00340 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:34:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkZ0-0003hA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:34:34 -0400 Received: from usergg026.dsl.pipex.com ([62.190.174.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkYz-0003gT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:34:33 -0400 Received: from cenderis.demon.co.uk ([62.49.17.254]) by usergg026.dsl.pipex.com via TCP (with SMTP (internal)) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:33:56 +0100 To: "ASRG" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam References: From: Bruce Stephens In-Reply-To: (Jon Kyme's message of "Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:26:11 +0100") Message-ID: <843choanwv.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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:33:52 +0100 "Jon Kyme" writes: >> > >> > You might say something more like >> > positive_test(name_of_engine_1, engineargs, message) => noconsent >> > positive_test(name_of_engine_2, engineargs, message) => consent >> > etc... >> >> I guess someone could standardise this (using whatever language they >> wanted), and there are some kinds of content filter (probably quite >> simple things---the sort of thing that SIEVE can do, say) that we >> could standardise on. That might be useful. > > Well no, this isn't really the kind of thing that sieve > ( http://www.cyrusoft.com/sieve/ ) is for - as I understand it. No, but I can imagine standardising things like "the email contains the string 'mortgage'". > Indeed, somebody could standardise this - if somebody wanted to make it > simple for MUA to talk to policy enforcement agents. [...] > No - it isn't THE "Solution to Spam". However, you can plug A "solution to > spam" right into it. > > positive_test(foolproof_spam_detector, engineargs, message) > => noconsent Well, perhaps. I think such a perfect spam detector is impossible, for useful definitions of spam. If a person unknown to me can send me an email that I want to receive (and I want them to be able to), then that person can send me unwanted email (and I don't want them to be able to do that, but I see no way to stop it without also preventing the possibility of wanted email). So I think the best way to attack spam is to make sending email expensive (in some way---this may involve computational cost rather than some kind of financial framework) such that anybody sending me email thinks a bit first (and so it won't be worthwhile sending to large numbers of people). So this would be attacking the volume part of usual definitions of spam. That could fit into a consent framework, of course: I could say how expensive I want it to be for strangers to contact me (specified in whatever terms are appropriate), and that would be automatically enforceable. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 12:36:42 2003 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 MAA00462 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xkad-0005NF-BO for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:36:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62GaFJx020651 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 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 19Xkad-0005N0-7U for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 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 MAA00451; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:36:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xkab-0003iP-00; Wed, 02 Jul 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 19Xkab-0003iM-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:36:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkaP-0005Jj-FW; Wed, 02 Jul 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 19XkZh-0005GM-8q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:35:17 -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 MAA00419 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:35:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkZf-0003ho-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:35:15 -0400 Received: from 000-257-002.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.243.209] helo=68.27.243.209 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkZd-0003hc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:35:14 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702123421.00b59520@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "C. Wegrzyn" , gep2@terabites.com From: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <3F0308D8.2080704@garbagedump.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 Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Solutions - Longterm - Replacing SMTP (Re: [Asrg] Bogus reasoning) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 02 Jul 2003 12:34:55 -0400 At 12:31 PM 7/2/2003 -0400, C. Wegrzyn wrote: >That is exactly what I have been saying, on and off, for the past month or >so (when I thought it was wise to stop lurking). The only really solution >to the problem is a receiver side solution, whether it happens at the >client or the MTA for the user. Would that include consent systems? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 12:39:42 2003 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 MAA00567 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:39:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkdY-0005o5-0z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:39:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62GdFCq022302 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:39:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkdX-0005nc-SD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:39:15 -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 MAA00546; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:39:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkdW-0003l5-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:39:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkdV-0003l1-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:39:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkdK-0005hj-SR; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:39:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkcZ-0005gP-4E for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:38:15 -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 MAA00516 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:38:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkcX-0003kA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:38:13 -0400 Received: from mxsmta02.inithost.com ([209.235.30.104] helo=mxsmta02.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkcX-0003k6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:38:13 -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 <20030702163614.IIQR7659.mxsmta02.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:36:14 -0400 Message-ID: <3F030A78.7060800@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: gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Solutions - Longterm - Replacing SMTP (Re: [Asrg] Bogus reasoning) References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702123421.00b59520@std5.imagineis.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702123421.00b59520@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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:38:16 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes. When I designed the solution that Authentica sells (I did the design over two years ago) it was a consent system. It uses VPNs and X500 certs as a proxy for consent. Simple, yes, but effective on a number of different levels. Chuck Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > At 12:31 PM 7/2/2003 -0400, C. Wegrzyn wrote: > >> That is exactly what I have been saying, on and off, for the past >> month or so (when I thought it was wise to stop lurking). The only >> really solution to the problem is a receiver side solution, whether >> it happens at the client or the MTA for the user. > > > Would that include consent systems? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 2 12:39:42 2003 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 MAA00569 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:39:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkdY-0005o7-1t for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:39:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62GdGaa022316 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:39:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkdX-0005nd-Tn for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:39:15 -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 MAA00547; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:39:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkdW-0003l8-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:39:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkdV-0003l2-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:39:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkdK-0005hE-EK; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:39:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkcS-0005gK-AF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:38:08 -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 MAA00512 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:38:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkcQ-0003jy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:38:06 -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 19XkcQ-0003ji-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:38:06 -0400 Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h62Gacgg033019; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:36:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200307021636.h62Gacgg033019@nic-naa.net> To: "David Koblas" cc: gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Asrg] Remote mailing In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 02 Jul 2003 09:25:57 PDT." <03d701c340b6$9e2a8c80$1002010a@corp.mailfrontier.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, 02 Jul 2003 12:36:38 -0400 ... That's a security problem ... Milage varies, for two of the four words in the phrase above. Some enet nic vendors allow the mac address to be user defined. Most inet i/f vendors allow the ipv{4|6} address to be user defined. ... The user defined character of these properties of network attachments do not carry with them sensible guarantees about the uniquenss of the user-defined MAC, anywhere, or the routability of the ip{4|6} address, or ... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 12:41:43 2003 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 MAA00681 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:41:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkfV-00067b-2T for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:41:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62GfHSa023525 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:41:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkfU-00067M-US for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:41:16 -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 MAA00666; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:41:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkfT-0003mw-00; Wed, 02 Jul 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 19XkfS-0003mt-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:41:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkfE-000610-Mh; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:41:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkfC-00060p-8m for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:40:58 -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 MAA00655 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:40:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkfA-0003mf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:40:56 -0400 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xkf9-0003mb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:40:55 -0400 Received: (qmail 91473 invoked by uid 1013); 2 Jul 2003 16:40:54 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: "Asrg@Ietf. Org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal Message-ID: <20030702184054.B82235@Space.Net> References: <20030702015753.F74353@Space.Net> 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 danny@apache.org on Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 09:38:22AM +0100 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: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:40:54 +0200 On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 09:38:22AM +0100, Danny Angus wrote: > What does work are the mechanisms which exist for propogating and > revoking trust, that you don't trust anyone is a completely different issue. Ok, what are the "mechanisms which exist for propogating and revoking trust"? Newspapers? I don't know of any technically oriented ones. Or more specifically: What do I have to do so that my browser can check whether a SSL cert for a website has been revoked? \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 Wed Jul 2 12:47:46 2003 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 MAA00916 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:47:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XklK-0006Rr-E1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:47:18 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62GlI2n024780 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:47:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XklK-0006Rb-An for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 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 MAA00888; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:47:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XklI-0003rC-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:47:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XklH-0003r6-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:47:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xkl3-0006Jc-S0; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:47:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkkF-0006Ie-9a for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:46:11 -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 MAA00848 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:46:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkkD-0003qS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:46:09 -0400 Received: from 000-257-002.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.243.209] helo=68.27.243.209 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkkB-0003qJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:46:08 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702124014.00b9f008@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] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within consent paradigm Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 02 Jul 2003 12:45:50 -0400 Before every jumps on me for reopening this can of worms again, I would like to state that this definition only applies to spam WITHIN the consent paradigm: spam = "any email that does not have consent from the receiver" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 12:47:49 2003 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 MAA00940 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:47:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XklK-0006S8-II for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:47:21 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62GlIxd024798 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:47:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XklK-0006Rq-EE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 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 MAA00889; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:47:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XklI-0003r9-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:47:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XklH-0003r5-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:47:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xkl4-0006Jk-7O; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:47:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XkkL-0006Il-Ft for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:46:17 -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 MAA00852 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:46:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkkJ-0003qY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:46:15 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XkkJ-0003qV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:46:15 -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 <20030702164759.GEOK28645.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:47:59 -0400 Message-ID: <3F030C58.3050605@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: Markus Stumpf CC: "Asrg@Ietf. Org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal References: <20030702015753.F74353@Space.Net> <20030702184054.B82235@Space.Net> In-Reply-To: <20030702184054.B82235@Space.Net> 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, 02 Jul 2003 12:46:16 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'll just tell you what I designed..your mileage can vary. Trust was established between two parties, out of band perhaps. Once that trust was established all that was required was the use of X509 certs. A proxy in front of the MTAs would do all the rest.... Chuck Markus Stumpf wrote: >On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 09:38:22AM +0100, Danny Angus wrote: > > >>What does work are the mechanisms which exist for propogating and >>revoking trust, that you don't trust anyone is a completely different issue. >> >> > >Ok, what are the "mechanisms which exist for propogating and revoking trust"? >Newspapers? I don't know of any technically oriented ones. Or more >specifically: What do I have to do so that my browser can check whether >a SSL cert for a website has been revoked? > > \Maex > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 12:56:50 2003 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 MAA01248 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:56:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xku6-0006vs-0z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:56:22 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62GuMDH026642 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:56:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xku5-0006vd-Sz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:56:21 -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 MAA01173; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:56:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xku4-0003wH-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:56:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xku3-0003wE-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:56:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xktl-0006la-61; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:56:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XktR-0006lH-3P for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:55:41 -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 MAA01156 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:55:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XktP-0003vV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:55:39 -0400 Received: from host217-35-105-169.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.105.169] helo=mail.neosinteractive.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XktO-0003vR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:55:38 -0400 Received: from tthomson ([217.35.105.173] unverified) by mail.neosinteractive.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:01:59 +0100 From: "Tom Thomson" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Viruses 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 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <16122.11883.895518.586214@world.std.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jul 2003 17:01:59.0007 (UTC) FILETIME=[A653AEF0:01C340BB] 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, 2 Jul 2003 17:55:34 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barry Shein uttered, in the course of one of his boring anti-MS rants, the following:- > To my mind there's a difference between, say, a sendmail vulnerability > which is discovered and a patch issued within hours and a virus which > can infect Windows95/98/NT/XP/2000/ME and probably other versions > which are releases spanning several years. See: > > http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/pf/backdoor.jeem.html I realize you want to attack MS for some reason and just launch into these rants as opportunity knocks, but might I suggest that if you compare time from detection to fixing (in the sendmail case) with time from issue of the first system that could be vulnerable up to present date in the Microsoft case you are comparing two very different things. Jeem was first detected Nov 15 2002. So you can't measure a span of years from discovery. *nix buffer overruns were first detected long before that and many remained unfixed for years. Tom Thomson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 13:08:55 2003 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 NAA02090 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:08:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xl5n-0008PJ-Lo for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:08:27 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62H8RA7032316 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:08:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xl5n-0008P9-HR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:08:27 -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 NAA02051; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:08:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xl5l-0004FG-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:08:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xl5l-0004FD-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:08:25 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xl5N-0008Ei-3B; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:08:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xl4e-00085l-Ln for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:07:16 -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 NAA02020 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:07:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xl4c-0004EX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:07:15 -0400 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xl4c-0004ET-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:07:14 -0400 Received: (qmail 93269 invoked by uid 1013); 2 Jul 2003 17:07:13 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal Message-ID: <20030702190713.C82235@Space.Net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701172458.00bd1de0@std5.imagineis.com> <20030702015753.F74353@Space.Net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030701201028.00babd58@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: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701201028.00babd58@std5.imagineis.com>; from research@solidmatrix.com on Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 08:12:17PM -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: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:07:13 +0200 On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 08:12:17PM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > What about a central CA issuing certificates to other CAs, controlled by > IANA or ICANN-type of organization? You mean to set the cat among the pigeons ;-) What you would need is a mechanism that creates and equal level of trust. As soon as I get a cert from CA-1 for 5 bucks and all that is needed is a working email address and CA-2 requires payment of 100 bucks and you have to send in legal papers and stuff you will create different levels of trust. That's what we have now. We have DNSBLs: some use them some not (no trust). Some block dialin IPs some not (diffferent levels of trust). What if in a country some of the legal documents required by CA-2 simply don't exist? In the US (I believe) there is something called social insurance number (or the like). Maybe in Dubai (I don't know) such a thing does not exist and nothing similar. But this would be required by a CA to identify e.g. a person. Would it mean people from Dubai can't get signed keys? And there is a social/commercial problem: What if in our country the two biggest emails providers with a share of say 30% don't stick to that system? What would I tell my customers? While private customers might understand it corporate customers will not understand why they can't talk to business partners any longer. And: you can't add pressure, as some of the smaller ISPs will say: "as our customer you can still receive mail from them. Leave your current ISP and join us". Big deal :( > There are mechanisms in place to check > verifications of certificates in real-time, and that can be implemented as > well. Hmmm ... take e.g. Verisign. I'd guess they have issued the most certs. What do you think would be needed as infrastructure so that every browser accessing a SSL site can verify the cert (e.g. if revoked) in real-time? certs work, because the producer of the browser added the CA keys of CAs to the browser and users depend on the producers of the browser and these depend on the CA to "do the right thing". If a key is signed by a "trusted" CA it's also trusted "per definitionem". We don't have working revocation mechanisms. To make it clear: I'd be more than glad if those methods would exist. There are patches for nearly all Mailservers to support SSL connections (STARTTLS) but I'd guess the percentage of mailservers using it has a lot of 0s after the decimal point and in front of the 1. \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 Wed Jul 2 13:11:44 2003 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 NAA02176 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:11:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xl8V-00007J-SQ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:11:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62HBF6Q000445 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:11:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xl8V-000076-OV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:11:15 -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 NAA02161; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:11:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xl8U-0004HD-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:11:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xl8T-0004HA-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:11:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xl8H-0008SF-FV; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:11:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xl8B-0008S1-Vn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:10:56 -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 NAA02147 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:10:53 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xl8A-0004Go-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:10:54 -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 19Xl89-0004Gc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:10:53 -0400 Received: (cpmta 1935 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2003 10:10:50 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.72) with SMTP; 2 Jul 2003 10:10:50 -0700 X-Sent: 2 Jul 2003 17:10:50 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:09:15 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:38:05 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: 6. Solutions - Longterm - Replacing SMTP (Re: [Asrg] Bogus reasoning) To: Yakov Shafranovich , gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702122608.00b9f008@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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:38:05 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >If we are forming a comprehensive plan for killing spam, then we should >consider long term solutions as well. Fine, but let's not do that to the exclusion of solving the problem. That's like discussing what will be done on her first (or third!) drydocking while the Titanic is sinking. >We can structure such plan to >gradually move the Internet with short term, medium term and long term >solutions, all leading to the long term solutions. I do not think any of >the short or medium term proposals or approaches can kill spam entirely - >even your approach will allow ASCII spam through. Indeed, and I propose a hypothesis that *nothing* (practical, anyhow) will prevent all possible spam from being sent. IF you're going to allow people you don't know (yet) to send you E-mails (because they saw your Web site, or saw a letter to the editor you wrote to your local newspaper, or saw the ad you posted on the bulletin board at your local Kroger or something) then there's no way to guarantee that the content of that E-mail won't be something commercial which you didn't want and don't care to see. Let's deal instead with the real problem... the high-volume repetitive intelligence-insulting stuff that tries to evade filters and muscle its way into our homes and our offices. >To completely kill all spam will require a long term solutions. I think it would take more than that... I think it would take a MIRACLE, or a change in the basic physical laws of the universe. Even making all E-mail identifiable doesn't prevent it from being spam... even if we CAN go back and absolutely identify the sender. Disposable accounts, and all that. >However, we do not have to worry >about a long term solutions right now, we can concentrate on the overall >plan and specific short-medium term solutions. On that point we agree. >>I don't think that there is a single "silver bullet" (wooden stake?) that >>will >>instantly stop spam. What's more likely is that we eventually and >>progressively >>just put enough sand in their gears that the great majority of them simply >>give >>up and decide to take up another career. >It is very well possible that all of the short and medium term solutions >will "put enough sand in their wheels" to stop them. Nevertheless, long >term solutions should remain within our ear shot, even if we do not spend >as much time on them as on short term stuff. Fair enough. Meanwhile, let's get some good, practical, implementable solutions on the record which can make a significant improvement (at least) in the immediate term. 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 Jul 2 13:14:47 2003 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 NAA02458 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:14:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XlBT-0000RW-5k for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:14:19 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62HEJEl001696 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:14:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XlBT-0000RH-1o for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:14:19 -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 NAA02408; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:14:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XlBR-0004NA-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:14:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XlBQ-0004N7-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:14:16 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XlBC-0000D3-Hl; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:14:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XlAb-0000Bv-0E for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:13:25 -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 NAA02342 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:13:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XlAZ-0004LZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:13:23 -0400 Received: from mxsmta01.inithost.com ([209.235.30.103] helo=mxsmta01.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XlAY-0004LW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:13:22 -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 <20030702171514.FJPO6624.mxsmta01.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:15:14 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0312B9.7080502@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: Markus Stumpf CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701172458.00bd1de0@std5.imagineis.com> <20030702015753.F74353@Space.Net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030701201028.00babd58@std5.imagineis.com> <20030702190713.C82235@Space.Net> In-Reply-To: <20030702190713.C82235@Space.Net> 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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:13:29 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If certs were to ever become a widespread reality I would rather have them come from my bank - I have a relationship with them - and not from some other 3rd party. Chuck Wegrzyn Markus Stumpf wrote: >On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 08:12:17PM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > >>What about a central CA issuing certificates to other CAs, controlled by >>IANA or ICANN-type of organization? >> >> > >You mean to set the cat among the pigeons ;-) >What you would need is a mechanism that creates and equal level of trust. >As soon as I get a cert from CA-1 for 5 bucks and all that is needed is >a working email address and CA-2 requires payment of 100 bucks and you >have to send in legal papers and stuff you will create different levels >of trust. That's what we have now. We have DNSBLs: some use them some >not (no trust). Some block dialin IPs some not (diffferent levels of >trust). What if in a country some of the legal documents required by >CA-2 simply don't exist? In the US (I believe) there is something >called social insurance number (or the like). Maybe in Dubai (I don't >know) such a thing does not exist and nothing similar. But this would be >required by a CA to identify e.g. a person. Would it mean people from Dubai >can't get signed keys? > >And there is a social/commercial problem: >What if in our country the two biggest emails providers with a share of >say 30% don't stick to that system? What would I tell my customers? >While private customers might understand it corporate customers will >not understand why they can't talk to business partners any longer. > >And: you can't add pressure, as some of the smaller ISPs will say: "as >our customer you can still receive mail from them. Leave your current >ISP and join us". Big deal :( > > > >>There are mechanisms in place to check >>verifications of certificates in real-time, and that can be implemented as >>well. >> >> > >Hmmm ... take e.g. Verisign. I'd guess they have issued the most certs. >What do you think would be needed as infrastructure so that every >browser accessing a SSL site can verify the cert (e.g. if revoked) in >real-time? >certs work, because the producer of the browser added the CA keys >of CAs to the browser and users depend on the producers of the browser >and these depend on the CA to "do the right thing". If a key is signed >by a "trusted" CA it's also trusted "per definitionem". We don't have >working revocation mechanisms. > >To make it clear: >I'd be more than glad if those methods would exist. There are patches >for nearly all Mailservers to support SSL connections (STARTTLS) but I'd >guess the percentage of mailservers using it has a lot of 0s after the >decimal point and in front of the 1. > > \Maex > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 13:16:41 2003 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 NAA02645 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:16:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XlDI-0000jq-TU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:16:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62HGCHU002832 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:16:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XlDI-0000jb-QO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:16:12 -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 NAA02597; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:16:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XlDG-0004R3-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:16:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XlDG-0004R0-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:16:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XlD6-0000ci-TE; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:16:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XlC9-0000SS-6P for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:15:01 -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 NAA02490 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:14:58 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XlC7-0004Nw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:14:59 -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 19XlC6-0004Ns-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:14:58 -0400 Received: (cpmta 19657 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2003 10:14:57 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.64) with SMTP; 2 Jul 2003 10:14:57 -0700 X-Sent: 2 Jul 2003 17:14:57 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:13:37 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:42:24 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: 1. Problem Inventory (Re: [Asrg] Remote mailing) To: Yakov Shafranovich , "David Koblas" , , In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702123150.00bc8158@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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:42:24 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>Spam at one level is a security problem, it's the allowance of non-validated >>sender to send messages impersonating other users. >Which arises from the design of SMTP and the general openness of the >Internet as it was developed originally. Guys, we're losing sight of the problem here. While preventing counterfeit headers is nice, it's entirely possible for the customers of ANY single spammer-friendly ISP literally *anywhere* in the world to flood the Net with spam. And spam doesn't HAVE to come from a non-validated sender. Spam is spam even if Microsoft or Dell or HP or General Motors decides to send it. Nothing says it can't be a "validated" sender doing 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 Wed Jul 2 13:18:47 2003 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 NAA02726 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:18:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XlFL-0000tZ-09 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:18:19 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62HIIUW003435 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:18:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XlFK-0000tK-TE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:18:18 -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 NAA02703; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:18:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XlFI-0004TS-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:18:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XlFI-0004TP-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:18:16 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XlF3-0000lv-7z; Wed, 02 Jul 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 19XlEM-0000lI-JK for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:17:18 -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 NAA02670 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:17:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XlEK-0004SS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:17:16 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XlEJ-0004SN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:17:16 -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 <20030702171859.GOKS28645.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:18:59 -0400 Message-ID: <3F03139D.8070803@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: gep2@terabites.com CC: Yakov Shafranovich , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 6. Solutions - Longterm - Replacing SMTP (Re: [Asrg] Bogus reasoning) 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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:17:17 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It seems we are getting hung up on two separate problems. Perhaps they should be separated out and dealt with. First is the short-term solutions to spam prevention. The second is the longer term problem. In the former there are some very real things we can do to cut down the amount of spam. Some of them might be recommendations that users provide filtering. Others might be to include consent like systems. The longer term solution should be predicted, I believe, on the idea the IPv6 is going to be the network of choice. It might very well also involve more radical changes to the email system (or I would like to think message deliver system - has anyone started to get IM spam - I have?). Peace, Chuck Wegrzyn gep2@terabites.com wrote: >>If we are forming a comprehensive plan for killing spam, then we should >>consider long term solutions as well. >> >> > >Fine, but let's not do that to the exclusion of solving the problem. That's >like discussing what will be done on her first (or third!) drydocking while the >Titanic is sinking. > > > >>We can structure such plan to >>gradually move the Internet with short term, medium term and long term >>solutions, all leading to the long term solutions. I do not think any of >>the short or medium term proposals or approaches can kill spam entirely - >>even your approach will allow ASCII spam through. >> >> > >Indeed, and I propose a hypothesis that *nothing* (practical, anyhow) will >prevent all possible spam from being sent. IF you're going to allow people you >don't know (yet) to send you E-mails (because they saw your Web site, or saw a >letter to the editor you wrote to your local newspaper, or saw the ad you posted >on the bulletin board at your local Kroger or something) then there's no way to >guarantee that the content of that E-mail won't be something commercial which >you didn't want and don't care to see. > >Let's deal instead with the real problem... the high-volume repetitive >intelligence-insulting stuff that tries to evade filters and muscle its way into >our homes and our offices. > > > >>To completely kill all spam will require a long term solutions. >> >> > >I think it would take more than that... I think it would take a MIRACLE, or a >change in the basic physical laws of the universe. > >Even making all E-mail identifiable doesn't prevent it from being spam... even >if we CAN go back and absolutely identify the sender. Disposable accounts, and >all that. > > > >>However, we do not have to worry >>about a long term solutions right now, we can concentrate on the overall >>plan and specific short-medium term solutions. >> >> > >On that point we agree. > > > >>>I don't think that there is a single "silver bullet" (wooden stake?) that >>>will >>>instantly stop spam. What's more likely is that we eventually and >>>progressively >>>just put enough sand in their gears that the great majority of them simply >>>give >>>up and decide to take up another career. >>> >>> > > > >>It is very well possible that all of the short and medium term solutions >>will "put enough sand in their wheels" to stop them. Nevertheless, long >>term solutions should remain within our ear shot, even if we do not spend >>as much time on them as on short term stuff. >> >> > >Fair enough. Meanwhile, let's get some good, practical, implementable solutions >on the record which can make a significant improvement (at least) in the >immediate term. > >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 Wed Jul 2 13:24:44 2003 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 NAA03109 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:24:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XlL6-0001Dd-HA for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:24:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62HOGfB004681 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:24:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XlL6-0001DQ-EE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:24:16 -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 NAA03068; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:24:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XlL4-0004Zu-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:24:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XlL3-0004Zr-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:24:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XlKr-00017A-Id; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:24:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XlKQ-00016o-3M for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:23:34 -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 NAA02983 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:23:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XlKO-0004ZE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:23:32 -0400 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XlKN-0004ZB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:23:31 -0400 Received: (qmail 94611 invoked by uid 1013); 2 Jul 2003 17:23:30 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: "C. Wegrzyn" Cc: Markus Stumpf , "Asrg@Ietf. Org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal Message-ID: <20030702192330.D82235@Space.Net> References: <20030702015753.F74353@Space.Net> <20030702184054.B82235@Space.Net> <3F030C58.3050605@garbagedump.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: <3F030C58.3050605@garbagedump.com>; from wegrzyn@garbagedump.com on Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 12:46:16PM -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: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:23:30 +0200 On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 12:46:16PM -0400, C. Wegrzyn wrote: > I'll just tell you what I designed..your mileage can vary. Trust was > established between two parties, out of band perhaps. Once that trust > was established all that was required was the use of X509 certs. A proxy > in front of the MTAs would do all the rest.... I /do/ like the idea in principle. What do you think would be required to establish a web of trust large enough to cover the current email infrastructure. I know quite some mailadmins (some personally, some virtually for years) good enough to "trust" them. We could exchange the keys and have a small web of trust. What is the benefit? I cannot reject all emails from mailservers I don't have a key or I won't have any customers in zero time. Current practise is to trust everyone unless configured otherwise. I don't see a chance for a system that works the opposite way in the near future. What we need is a simple system that says "trust me" and that even allows to say "don't trust me" (because I am a workstation and probably hacked or virus infected or abused). And IMHO the cheapest, simplest and fastest method would be to associate TXT records along with PTR records for IP addresses that would contain: "MTA=yes" or "MTA=no" and an optional abuse contact in form of an URI like "MTA=yes;mailto:abuse@example.com" "MTA=no;http://www.example.com/abuse/contact.html" If no such record is available it's up to you whether you accept or not. It wouldn't break any of the existing mechanisms like forwarding, it wouldn't have problems with large DNS packets, it uses standard existing methods and it's easy to deploy. However it would be weaker than RMX or SPF or ... \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 Wed Jul 2 13:34:45 2003 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 NAA03482 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:34:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XlUm-0001Zs-Fg for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:34:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62HYGGa006057 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:34:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XlUm-0001Zc-6t for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:34:16 -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 NAA03455; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:34:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XlUk-0004kW-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:34:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XlUj-0004kT-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:34:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XlUX-0001TI-4g; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:34:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XlUR-0001T4-Fh for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:33:55 -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 NAA03432 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:33:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XlUP-0004k1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:33:53 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XlUO-0004jy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:33:52 -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 <20030702173541.GUBP28645.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:35:41 -0400 Message-ID: <3F031784.60408@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: Markus Stumpf CC: "Asrg@Ietf. Org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal References: <20030702015753.F74353@Space.Net> <20030702184054.B82235@Space.Net> <3F030C58.3050605@garbagedump.com> <20030702192330.D82235@Space.Net> In-Reply-To: <20030702192330.D82235@Space.Net> 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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:33:56 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Markus. I have only dealt with small groups of trusts - between cooperating companies. The idea was to develop a proxy that would sit in front of the MTAs and handle the trust. As for doing it on a broader scale, I don't know. Trust isn't one of those transitive things (A trusts B, B trusts C doesn't mean A trusts C). If you take a service like Yahoo email I don't know if the system would even scale. Chuck Wegrzyn Markus Stumpf wrote: >On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 12:46:16PM -0400, C. Wegrzyn wrote: > > >>I'll just tell you what I designed..your mileage can vary. Trust was >>established between two parties, out of band perhaps. Once that trust >>was established all that was required was the use of X509 certs. A proxy >>in front of the MTAs would do all the rest.... >> >> > >I /do/ like the idea in principle. >What do you think would be required to establish a web of trust large >enough to cover the current email infrastructure. >I know quite some mailadmins (some personally, some virtually for years) >good enough to "trust" them. We could exchange the keys and have a >small web of trust. What is the benefit? I cannot reject all emails from >mailservers I don't have a key or I won't have any customers in zero time. > >Current practise is to trust everyone unless configured otherwise. I don't >see a chance for a system that works the opposite way in the near future. > >What we need is a simple system that says "trust me" and that even >allows to say "don't trust me" (because I am a workstation and probably >hacked or virus infected or abused). >And IMHO the cheapest, simplest and fastest method would be to associate >TXT records along with PTR records for IP addresses that would contain: > "MTA=yes" >or > "MTA=no" >and an optional abuse contact in form of an URI like > "MTA=yes;mailto:abuse@example.com" > "MTA=no;http://www.example.com/abuse/contact.html" > >If no such record is available it's up to you whether you accept or not. > >It wouldn't break any of the existing mechanisms like forwarding, it >wouldn't have problems with large DNS packets, it uses standard existing >methods and it's easy to deploy. >However it would be weaker than RMX or SPF or ... > > \Maex > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 13:49:18 2003 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 NAA03967 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:49:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xlis-0002BP-Fg for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:48:50 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62Hmo3V008387 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:48:50 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xlis-0002BC-CW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:48:50 -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 NAA03957; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:48:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xliq-0004wS-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:48:48 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xlip-0004wP-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:48:47 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xli5-00021R-LK; Wed, 02 Jul 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 19XlhP-00020t-GU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:47:19 -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 NAA03894 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:47:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XlhN-0004vO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:47:17 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr8.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XlhM-0004vL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:47:16 -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 ANK00138; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:44:46 -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 AJY09994; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:44:44 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within consent paradigm Message-ID: <002401c340c1$a1565000$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 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702124014.00b9f008@pop.pocketmail.com> 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, 2 Jul 2003 13:44:46 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > spam =3D "any email that does not have consent from the receiver" I don't think so...=20 It may be hard to define "spam" but that doesn't mean that we should just accept definitions that don't make sense. There is, I believe, a class of "unwanted" messages that the average person would not consider to be "spam." For instance, a message from an ex-boy/girlfriend might be unwanted but wouldn't normally pass the "smell test" for what is spam. Similarly, a message from your mother which might have been rejected by your spam filters because it was formatted in HTML (she doesn't know any other way to send it...) wouldn't really be considered "spam" by the average person. It would be convenient if we had a nice, tight, broadly accepted definition of spam. However, I think we need to give up on even trying to get there. Since we've pretty much proved that just about any definition of spam is going to result in endless debate about its correctness, let's just stop trying to define it and focus our energy on solving the problem. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 14:17:13 2003 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 OAA05130 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:17:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xm9t-0003kE-O7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:16:46 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62IGjUC014393 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:16:45 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xm9t-0003k4-L2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:16:45 -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 OAA05112; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:16:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xm9r-0005Mc-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:16:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xm9q-0005MZ-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:16:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xm9A-0003c3-QL; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:16:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xm8P-0003Zg-2F for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 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 OAA05031 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:15:09 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xm8M-0005L0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:15:10 -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 19Xm8L-0005Kw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:15:09 -0400 Received: (cpmta 23291 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2003 11:15:08 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.71) with SMTP; 2 Jul 2003 11:15:08 -0700 X-Sent: 2 Jul 2003 18:15:08 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:15:00 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:43:48 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Remote mailing To: "David Koblas" , , In-Reply-To: <03d701c340b6$9e2a8c80$1002010a@corp.mailfrontier.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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:43:48 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Spam at one level is a security problem, it's the allowance of non-validated >sender to send messages impersonating other users. Eliminating that (even if we could) still doesn't solve the spam problem. A person can sent a Hotmail message saying IN THE BODY that they're so-and-so... how are you going to prevent false statements being made in ANY E-mail? I don't think you can. >Your example is "should a Cisco employee be allow to send a message from >anywhere without authenticating against Cisco" implies that Cisco doesn't >care who sends messages claiming to be from a Cisco. So someone sends a message saying (in the body!) that they're from Cisco. Caveat lector! Cisco CANNOT prevent that. >Easy example, is today >sitting at my desk I can originate a message from "John Chambers" letting >you know the quarterly earning are great! That's a security problem, the >message didn't originate from Cisco nor is this user authenticated... >If you're sitting on an airplane, customer site, etc., you should >authenticate in to your corporate network or send email via another channel. Easier said than done. You may simply NOT HAVE CONTROL over how the E-mail is being sent, ONLY able to enter your return address. >Hotmail, Yahoo, AOL, etc. all have authentication before you can send email, >they can easily stamp, sign or otherwise endorse the message before it's >delivered on the network. You're presuming that you're necessarily using Web-based E-mail, which is NOT always the case. (E.g. Internet cafes on cruise ships, where you're 'favored' to send the mail using their native mail system rather than using the Web browser... due to the satellite connection at $7+/minute!) >There is no reason that a MTA or MUA should in the long term allow >non-verifiable messages to arrive. That depends ENTIRELY on the situation. It's dangerous to make categoric statements like that. >It's the responsibly of the sending MTA >to stamp/sign a message on outgoing delivery. It's impossible to belive >that we can remove spam from the network, but what I want to see is good >senders not having to worry about their ability to send email and have it be >received (see recent FTC problems). "Good senders" could STILL decide to send spam. The recipient STILL needs the right to block stuff (even from people that they know and trust) that's outside the boundaries of what they're used to accepting (and willing to accept) from individual senders. And there PROBABLY needs to be a mechanism for them to AT LEAST BE AWARE that they've received something from someone "new", and to decide if they want to take it or not. This is NOT a lot different than long-established policy of when you call the President of XYZ Corporation, and the secretary takes the call and finds out: 1) who you are 2) what company you're with 3) what the call is regarding And then, based on that (and their knowing the Boss) they'll either deflect your call to another department, or present the Boss with the information to see if he wants to take the call. And like in my proposal, he'll clarify his policy: 1) no, I'm not interested in calls like these; send 'em to Customer Service 2) Yes, put him through right away 3) I'll take it this time, but not if he calls back 4) tell him to get lost or whatever. Screening your calls with an answering machine is much the same... you'll let the answering machine take it, and listen while the caller (rapidly) makes their case for calling them back. If you want, you can pick up the phone and take the call; or you can maybe call them back at your leisure. 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 Jul 2 15:00:26 2003 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 PAA06353 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:00:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xmpj-0004zI-Du for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:59:59 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62IxxqY019166 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:59:59 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xmpj-0004z3-Ah for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:59:59 -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 OAA06296; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:59:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xmpg-0005qB-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:59:56 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xmpg-0005q8-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:59:56 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xmon-0004sQ-EP; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:59:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xmob-0004sC-Rn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:58:49 -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 OAA06272 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:58:46 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XmoZ-0005pg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:58:47 -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 19XmoY-0005pc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:58:46 -0400 Received: (cpmta 7335 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2003 11:58:44 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.65) with SMTP; 2 Jul 2003 11:58:44 -0700 X-Sent: 2 Jul 2003 18:58:44 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:56:53 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:25:42 -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] Consent 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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:25:42 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>I think an important aspect of such a consent-based system is precisely >that the >sender (or spammer or whoever) MUST NOT BE ABLE TO INQUIRE IN ADVANCE >regarding >what (hypothetically) would and would not be accepted. > I'm not sure that this is necessarily true. It would certainly take the wind out of the "legitimate mass mailers" if it could be shown that they could have ascertained that their mailing was unwanted before they sent it. I think any spammer which includes "obscuring" techniques designed to fool filters in their spam would have a hard time claiming that their mailing wasn't unwanted. One of the things my incoming mail filtering system does, in fact, is to trigger off of various types of obscuring techniques that are done by spammers but basically never in legitimate E-mail. > Equally, knowing in advance that a message with particular characteristics will be blocked need not (of itself) help the spammer in constructing a message that will get through. Maybe, but it tells them how much they maybe can get away with. I don't think it's what we ought to do. I'd rather see them forced by default into least-common-denominator formats. > If we're worried that spammers can deduce the anti-spam function of a system in some way shouldn't we also be concerned that spammers can (a) read this list (b) freely download widely used spamtools? Sure, and we can safely presume they do BOTH a and b. The way for them to get their spam past my permission list and into my Inbox is to: 1) send it in plain ASCII text without attachments of any kind; 2) get past my other heuristics in my incoming mail filtering system; 2) not include anything in it which another content filter (such as Spam Assassin, for instance, which they should presume I'll customize) would consider evidence of spam. But hey, if a spammer (who spams everyone else on the planet!) wants to send *me* a *legitimate*, non-spam message... I don't see why I shouldn't accept THAT one, if I want to. > I believe that your objection may be answered by having some sort of "scope" field in a consent expression. You can choose to set the scope of your expression to be (say) "local" which might be equvalent to configuring your MUA or MDA. You might choose to set it "organisational" in which case your expression might be propagated to your firms (ISP?) mail system. Only a "global" scope for expression has any of the risk that you're worried about, and only then if the expression includes filtering criteria explicitly, rather than references to "message classification" engines which an arbitary entity won't necessarily have access to. One of the (many!) things that my incoming E-mail filtering system does is that it has specific support for multiple users (suitable for use in a corporate organization) where there is provision for individual users to set their filters, banned sender domains, POP3 mailboxes around the Net, and the like differently from other users. My incoming mail filtering program is presently over 1300 lines of SPITBOL, which is a rather large SPITBOL program. I haven't implemented yet some of the things I think it should do (like sender-specific permission lists) although even just with what I have so far, I've filtered out a lot of the crap that I'd otherwise have to deal with, and GREATLY reduced the hassle and annoyance factor involved with the messages I *do* get every day. (It actually does a lot more than just go/no go filtering... it also strips out most banner ads and the like from mail delivered by widely-used services, for example). 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 Jul 2 15:03:14 2003 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 PAA06505 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:03:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XmsQ-00058Q-2c for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:02:48 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62J2ks2019732 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:02:46 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XmsP-00058B-UC for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:02:45 -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 PAA06492; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:02:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XmsN-0005sj-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:02:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XmsM-0005sg-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:02:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xmri-00051R-4L; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:02:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xmqy-00050p-NZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:01:16 -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 PAA06420 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:01:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xmqv-0005r9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:01:13 -0400 Received: from [204.127.198.39] (helo=rwcrmhc13.comcast.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xmqv-0005qk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:01:13 -0400 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <20030702190038015008v5rqe>; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:00:38 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (unknown [10.0.0.108]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79ED557AB for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:08:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F032BD3.8090109@zemos.net> From: Philip Miller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Maintaining Anonymity in an Authenticated 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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:00:35 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In all the discussion of authenticating individual senders rather than the servers and MTAs they're using, we've all forgotten that there are circumstances in which anonymity is a requirement. Think of corporate whistle-blowing situations, in which someone wishes to send an anonymous message to an entity like a media organization or the SEC. In a world in which all transmissions are undeniably authenticated to a sender, this becomes impossible. Anonymous transmission is indeed a feature of our current systems, not a bug. Any new system or authentication layer on top of what already exists needs to maintain that. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 15:13:13 2003 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 PAA07634 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:13:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xn26-0005cw-0O for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:12:46 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62JCjrf021626 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:12:45 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xn25-0005cj-Tp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:12:45 -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 PAA07578; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:12:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xn22-0005yu-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:12:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xn22-0005yr-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:12:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xn1N-0005W1-Lv; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:12:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xn0X-0005RT-N6 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:11:09 -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 PAA07360 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:11:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xn0U-0005xP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:11:06 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xn0T-0005xC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:11:05 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19Xn0O-0004kY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:11:00 +0100 In-Reply-To: <843choanwv.fsf@cenderis.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.7] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 82.69.7.27 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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:11:00 +0100 > "Jon Kyme" writes: > > > >> > > >> > You might say something more like > >> > positive_test(name_of_engine_1, engineargs, message) => noconsent > >> > positive_test(name_of_engine_2, engineargs, message) => consent > >> > etc... > >> > >> I guess someone could standardise this (using whatever language they > >> wanted), and there are some kinds of content filter (probably quite > >> simple things---the sort of thing that SIEVE can do, say) that we > >> could standardise on. That might be useful. > > > > Well no, this isn't really the kind of thing that sieve > > ( http://www.cyrusoft.com/sieve/ ) is for - as I understand it. > > No, but I can imagine standardising things like "the email contains > the string 'mortgage'". > It's clarly possible to *implement* a particular engine as a sieve "filter". I'm really thinking of a higher level (general) description. While any component might be implemented in any way you care to imagine, what we're actually short of is a framework in which various components might interoperate and complement each other. > [...] > > > No - it isn't THE "Solution to Spam". However, you can plug A "solution > to > > spam" right into it. > > > > positive_test(foolproof_spam_detector, engineargs, message) > > => noconsent > > Well, perhaps. I think such a perfect spam detector is impossible, > for useful definitions of spam. > > > So I think the best way to attack spam is to make sending email > expensive (in some way---this may involve computational cost rather > than some kind of financial framework) such that anybody sending me > email thinks a bit first (and so it won't be worthwhile sending to > large numbers of people). So this would be attacking the volume part > of usual definitions of spam. > Various kind of "proof-of-work" schemes have been discussed by this group (check the archive) and in other places. > That could fit into a consent framework, of course: I could say how > expensive I want it to be for strangers to contact me (specified in > whatever terms are appropriate), and that would be automatically > enforceable. > The point of a general framework is that *anything* will fit into it. This should really be on the consent thread... -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 15:16:10 2003 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 PAA08026 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:16:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xn4x-0005oU-B7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:15:44 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62JFhaB022340 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:15:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xn4x-0005oF-7d for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:15:43 -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 PAA07967; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:15:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xn4u-00062d-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:15:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xn4t-00062a-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:15:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xn4H-0005hq-1Q; Wed, 02 Jul 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 19Xn3R-0005h3-8y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:14:09 -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 PAA07764 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:14:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xn3O-00061j-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:14:06 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xn3N-00061f-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:14:05 -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 h62JDusQ005201; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:13:57 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA17945; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:13:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16131.12019.987919.107831@world.std.com> To: Cc: "'Kee Hinckley'" , "'Barry Shein'" , "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , In-Reply-To: <004301c3401a$7b548590$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> References: <004301c3401a$7b548590$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: Warning people of "intent to send" large quantities 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: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:13:55 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On July 1, 2003 at 17:48 bob@wyman.us (Bob Wyman) wrote: > It has been suggested that folk like the FTC should "talk with spam > filtering companies" prior to sending out large quantities of mail -- > even if that mail is unquestionably "non-spam." This is easy to say. > However, it isn't obvious to me who these "spam filter companies" are. > If I was going to send out a few hundred thousand legitimate messages > sometime next week, who would I warn? How would I contact them? Offer money and they'll volunteer themselves. This is where it's going, like it or not, people can't do all this work (like vetting and whitelisting self-proclaimed do-gooders.) Not clear exactly what self-proclaimed do-gooders should get for free. It's changing, things are changing. Of course, feel free to do whatever amount of work in this regard you feel compelled to do, just don't assume everyone is interested in having their workload cranked up arbitrarily just because someone wants a free ride (even if that free ride is "reliability" rather than mere hit or miss delivery.) > It seems to me that if we have a system that relies on people > talking with each other, then we need to put in place some mechanism so > that they can find each other to begin the discussions. Money works. > * Should we have a mailing list to which people can send notices > of "intent to send" large quantities of mail? > * If you are warning someone, what form should the warning take? > Should it include a sample message? Should it include the headers that > you will be sending? Should it include information on the number of > messages that you'll send? How about providing information concerning > the time of day that the message will be sent? > * Is there a place for standards on how such warnings should be > issued? If so, who should draft and promulgate such a standard? > * Should there be third-party "judges" established that will > have the time, patience and skills to determine whether planned email > blasts are legitimate? If so, who should these judges be? Yeah there ya go, armchair generals... -- -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 Jul 2 15:29:21 2003 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 PAA08689 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:29:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XnHh-0006FK-MJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:28:54 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62JSrLL024009 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:28:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XnHh-0006FA-Fr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:28:53 -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 PAA08668; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:28:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XnHe-0006CT-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:28:50 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XnHd-0006CP-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:28:49 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XnGr-00068E-5Q; Wed, 02 Jul 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 19XnG9-000681-VA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:27:18 -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 PAA08631 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:27:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XnG6-00069k-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:27:15 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XnG5-00069g-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:27:14 -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 h62JKwsQ016312; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:20:59 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA19570; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:20:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16131.12441.265856.202223@world.std.com> To: "C. Wegrzyn" Cc: Yakov Shafranovich , bob@wyman.us, "'Kee Hinckley'" , "'Barry Shein'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Warning people of "intent to send" large quantities of email In-Reply-To: <3F02CA1F.2020905@garbagedump.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701203350.00bd2df8@std5.imagineis.com> <3F02CA1F.2020905@garbagedump.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, 2 Jul 2003 15:20:57 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On July 2, 2003 at 08:03 wegrzyn@garbagedump.com (C. Wegrzyn) wrote: > I doubt any kind of legislative action will work. It is too easy to get > a provider "off shore" and spam from that provider. Whatever else your objections this canard comes up frequently so is probably worthwhile knocking down again: 1. Spam is not the first crime in history with an international component. 2. If the purpose of spam is to sell something then the spammer or their client has a business nexus within the country being spammed, with a few exceptions (stock pumping or selling vacation homes in the foreign country or whatever, hardly an objection tho.) 3. If they have a business nexus in the target country then that can be subjected to legal means. 4. Believe it or not other countries are capable of passing decent laws, one has to have some faith that if someone leads others will follow and pass their own anti-spam laws and enforce them in response to complaints. Few govts have any real interest in letting spammers roam free as much as they may just be a little slow to act. 5. Countries which are determined to be rogue can be dealt with on a case by case basis (e.g., blocked/filtered heavily/other trade sanctions, 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 exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 15:45:49 2003 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 PAA09328 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:45:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XnXe-000791-Q1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:45:22 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62JjMmK027457 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:45:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XnXe-00078m-M2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:45:22 -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 PAA09279; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:45:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XnWs-0006Mv-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:44:34 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XnWr-0006Ms-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:44:33 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XnWL-0006tv-1m; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:44:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XnVu-0006pc-2p for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:43:34 -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 PAA09229 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:43:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XnVq-0006Lo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:43:30 -0400 Received: from 000-257-002.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.243.209] helo=68.27.243.209) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XnVo-0006Lj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:43:29 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702154301.00b9ca78@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] Re: Warning people of "intent to send" large quantities of email Cc: "'Kee Hinckley'" , 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, 02 Jul 2003 15:43:02 -0400 At 03:13 PM 7/2/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: >On July 1, 2003 at 17:48 bob@wyman.us (Bob Wyman) wrote: > > It has been suggested that folk like the FTC should "talk with spam > > filtering companies" prior to sending out large quantities of mail -- > > even if that mail is unquestionably "non-spam." This is easy to say. > > However, it isn't obvious to me who these "spam filter companies" are. > > If I was going to send out a few hundred thousand legitimate messages > > sometime next week, who would I warn? How would I contact them? > >Offer money and they'll volunteer themselves. >[..] Offer money to who? For what? Who will decide who gets what? Who will distribute it? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 15:45:49 2003 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 PAA09329 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:45:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XnXe-00078h-JI for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:45:22 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62JjMwm027436 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:45:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XnXe-00078N-DL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:45:22 -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 PAA09278; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:45:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XnWe-0006Mm-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:44:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XnWd-0006Mi-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:44:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XnVM-0006p0-DQ; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:43:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XnVF-0006oj-B4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:42:53 -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 PAA09191 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:42:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XnVC-0006Ja-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:42:50 -0400 Received: from mxsmta02.inithost.com ([209.235.30.104] helo=mxsmta02.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XnVB-0006JX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:42:49 -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 <20030702194051.KTUS7659.mxsmta02.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:40:51 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0335C0.9070207@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: Barry Shein CC: Yakov Shafranovich , bob@wyman.us, "'Kee Hinckley'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Warning people of "intent to send" large quantities of email References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701203350.00bd2df8@std5.imagineis.com> <3F02CA1F.2020905@garbagedump.com> <16131.12441.265856.202223@world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <16131.12441.265856.202223@world.std.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, 02 Jul 2003 15:42:56 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes Barry I know all the arguments about why it can be legislated. The problem is that there is a very strong economic reason for it not to happen. Chuck Wegrzyn Barry Shein wrote: >On July 2, 2003 at 08:03 wegrzyn@garbagedump.com (C. Wegrzyn) wrote: > > I doubt any kind of legislative action will work. It is too easy to get > > a provider "off shore" and spam from that provider. > >Whatever else your objections this canard comes up frequently so is >probably worthwhile knocking down again: > >1. Spam is not the first crime in history with an international >component. > >2. If the purpose of spam is to sell something then the spammer or >their client has a business nexus within the country being spammed, >with a few exceptions (stock pumping or selling vacation homes in the >foreign country or whatever, hardly an objection tho.) > >3. If they have a business nexus in the target country then that can >be subjected to legal means. > >4. Believe it or not other countries are capable of passing decent >laws, one has to have some faith that if someone leads others will >follow and pass their own anti-spam laws and enforce them in response >to complaints. > >Few govts have any real interest in letting spammers roam free as much >as they may just be a little slow to act. > >5. Countries which are determined to be rogue can be dealt with on a >case by case basis (e.g., blocked/filtered heavily/other trade >sanctions, etc.) > > > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 15:47:04 2003 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 PAA09387 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:47:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XnYs-0007MM-OS for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:46:38 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62JkcOx028284 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:46:38 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XnYs-0007M7-LW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:46:38 -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 PAA09378; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:46:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XnYp-0006Op-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:46:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XnYo-0006Ol-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:46:34 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XnYH-0007F1-SW; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:46:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XnXe-00078M-Cy for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:45:22 -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 PAA09283 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:45:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XnXO-0006NS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:45:06 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XnXN-0006NK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:45:06 -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 h62Jj1BG013023; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:45:01 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA24512; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:45:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16131.13884.492660.11369@world.std.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Barry Shein , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701172808.00bcda88@std5.imagineis.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030630221600.00b34f90@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030701172808.00bcda88@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, 2 Jul 2003 15:45:00 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, some ideas: 1. Some sort of time-domain analysis of where spam actually comes from (ip addresses, nets.) If it's seemingly random that would point towards the theory that it's just (presumably illegally) exploited machines. If it's coming from specific places with some predictability then that would lean towards more consent-based conclusions. 2. Stability of web addresses etc advertised in spam. I've heard it claimed (by one of the speakers at the MIT spam conf) that the typical lifespan of a spamvertised website is two hours. Again, that sort of instability tends to promote the idea of spam being a product of criminal behavior. 3. Stability of relays Similar, but how long does a spam relay spew spam, typically (what's the distribution)? One hour? 12 hours? Years? And related summary statistics such as the number of msgs spewed, the time domain (is it bursty or continuous), etc. -b On July 1, 2003 at 17:30 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > At 03:30 PM 7/1/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: > > > > At 03:35 PM 6/29/2003 -0400, Paul Judge wrote: > > > >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 > >I will point out that the hard evidence for this is lacking. > > > >[..] > >More to the point I would assert that if we don't endeavor to nail > >down hard evidence and work forward from there we're in great danger > >of shadow-boxing with our own imaginings about how we would like to > >think spammers operate. > > > >I realize the urge to show progress is great and fact-gathering sounds > >like a frustrating impediment to some, but...how bad would it be if > >our efforts turned out to be foolish and disconnected from reality, > >research into a June bug*? > > Great, what kind of evidence or things should we be looking for? From > (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg-work-items.txt): > > ---snip--- > 2.a. Spam Measurements. This works needs to be focused on immediately. This > data will help us understand the current weaknesses in the system and where > efforts should be focused. Requirements need to be set and then we have to > gather the data. I see two separate paths here: One is based on user survey > input. Ted Gavin has volunteered to conduct this. The other data is based > on real spam measurements. Once the requirements are gathered, Brightmail, > CipherTrust, CloudMark and MessageLabs have each volunteered to contribute > information. Any other volunteers? > ---snip-- > > As you can see Brightmail, CipherTrust and a bunch of others agreed to > provide data. All we need is to define what we are looking for. > > Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 15:49:04 2003 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 PAA09546 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:49:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xnan-0007V3-U4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:48:38 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62JmbZA028823 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:48:37 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xnan-0007Uo-Pg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:48:37 -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 PAA09467; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:48:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xnak-0006QJ-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:48:34 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xnak-0006QG-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:48:34 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XnaD-0007NI-1v; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:48:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XnZR-0007Mb-Mz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:47:13 -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 PAA09406 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:47:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XnZO-0006PB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:47:10 -0400 Received: from 000-257-002.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.243.209] helo=68.27.243.209) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XnZL-0006P6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:47:08 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702154344.00ba8ab8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Philip Miller , ASRG From: Yakov Shafranovich In-Reply-To: <3F032BD3.8090109@zemos.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] 3. Requirements - Support for Anonymity (Re: [Asrg] Maintaining Anonymity in an Authenticated 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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:46:44 -0400 At 03:00 PM 7/2/2003 -0400, Philip Miller wrote: >In all the discussion of authenticating individual senders rather than the >servers and MTAs they're using, we've all forgotten that there are >circumstances in which anonymity is a requirement. Think of corporate >whistle-blowing situations, in which someone wishes to send an anonymous >message to an entity like a media organization or the SEC. In a world in >which all transmissions are undeniably authenticated to a sender, this >becomes impossible. >Anonymous transmission is indeed a feature of our current systems, not a >bug. Any new system or authentication layer on top of what already exists >needs to maintain that. One interesting observation that was made that spammer usually do not use CyberPunk anonymous remailers to send spam or any other kind of anonymous remailers. There must be a reason for that, perhaps because they see no need to do so. However, you are definitely right, anonymity is important. One distinction that can be made perhaps, that a trusted system could be implemented for bulk email only, thus allowing anyone to send a single message anonymously once. The question remains - can a trust system allow for anonymity? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 15:54:05 2003 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 PAA10063 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:54:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xnff-0007uh-47 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:53:39 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62JrdYG030412 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:53:39 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xnfe-0007uO-Vd for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:53:38 -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 PAA10033; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:53:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xnfb-0006Yi-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:53:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xnfb-0006Yf-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:53:35 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xnf2-0007kK-Sl; Wed, 02 Jul 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 19XneC-0007ji-Ic for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:52:08 -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 PAA09934 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:52:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xne9-0006Xk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:52:05 -0400 Received: from 000-257-002.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.243.209] helo=68.27.243.209) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xne6-0006XY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:52:03 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702154710.00b4e230@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] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within consent paradigm In-Reply-To: <002401c340c1$a1565000$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702124014.00b9f008@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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:51:42 -0400 At 01:44 PM 7/2/2003 -0400, Bob Wyman wrote: >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > spam = "any email that does not have consent from the receiver" > I don't think so... > It may be hard to define "spam" but that doesn't mean that we >should just accept definitions that don't make sense. There is, I >believe, a class of "unwanted" messages that the average person would >not consider to be "spam." > For instance, a message from an ex-boy/girlfriend might be >unwanted but wouldn't normally pass the "smell test" for what is spam. >Similarly, a message from your mother which might have been rejected by >your spam filters because it was formatted in HTML (she doesn't know any >other way to send it...) wouldn't really be considered "spam" by the >average person. A human being expresses consent for specific messages. The consent system tries its best to implement those wishes. Unfortunately the wishes of humans and the results of computers do not necessarily match. There is a need for a distinction between consent expressed by a human being and how this consent is implemented by computers. However, the bottom line is that any message that a human receiver does not want - does not consent to, is considering spam according to that person. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 15:59:13 2003 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 PAA10191 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:59:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xnkc-00087j-NM for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:58:47 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62JwkQB031220 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:58:46 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xnkc-00087T-K3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:58:46 -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 PAA10180; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:58:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XnkZ-0006do-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:58:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XnkY-0006dl-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:58:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xnjt-00080a-O9; Wed, 02 Jul 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 19XnjE-000801-Ts for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:57:20 -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 PAA10154 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:57:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XnjB-0006bA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:57:17 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XnjA-0006b6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:57:17 -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 h62JvFBG002810; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:57:15 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA27479; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:57:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16131.14618.897344.185084@world.std.com> To: "Tom Thomson" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Viruses In-Reply-To: References: <16122.11883.895518.586214@world.std.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, 2 Jul 2003 15:57:14 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On July 2, 2003 at 17:55 tthomson@neosinteractive.com (Tom Thomson) wrote: > Jeem was first detected Nov 15 2002. So you can't measure a span of years > from discovery. *nix buffer overruns were first detected long before that > and many remained unfixed for years. Buffer overruns have been rampant over the years in all vendors' software (and freeware, etc.) MS is also forever releasing patches, particularly in IIS, to fix buffer-overrun coding bugs. It's a vague and broad description of a generalized problem in coding quality, a true bug, not an architecture or design strategy such as allowing any mail macro to add system software and update the registry. The problem is finding them all in millions and millions of lines of code. Occasionally they sneak in somewhat subtly. No one (here anyhow) is complaining about a true oversight or bug. Unfortunately for your puff piece, this is not comparable to tolerating a set of very specific viruses/trojans/worms exploiting the same (mis-)feature in a family of operating systems released over a period of several years. That's just refusing to fix a problem. Anyhow, you do your cause no good, maybe you should let Microsoft defend Microsoft, I doubt they need cheerleaders defending them in a technical forum. -- -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 Jul 2 16:04:11 2003 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 QAA10443 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:04:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XnpR-0008Oz-AZ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:03:45 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62K3jA9032296 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:03:45 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XnpP-0008Oo-79 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:03:43 -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 QAA10412; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:03:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XnpL-0006hy-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:03:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XnpK-0006hv-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:03:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xnoi-0008IA-KR; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:03:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xnoe-0008Hs-ER for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:02:56 -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 QAA10383 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:02:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xnob-0006hC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:02:53 -0400 Received: from 205-158-62-67.outblaze.com ([205.158.62.67] helo=spf13.us4.outblaze.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xnoa-0006h0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:02:52 -0400 Received: from 205-158-62-68.outblaze.com (205-158-62-68.outblaze.com [205.158.62.68]) by spf13.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with QMQP id 6C149188EB18 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:02:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: (qmail 97523 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2003 20:02:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ws1-8.us4.outblaze.com) (205.158.62.59) by 205-158-62-153.outblaze.com with SMTP; 2 Jul 2003 20:02:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 62187 invoked by uid 1001); 2 Jul 2003 20:02:19 -0000 Message-ID: <20030702200219.62186.qmail@mail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.41 (Entity 5.404) Received: from [195.11.247.14] by ws1-8.us4.outblaze.com with http for hondin.degoot@programmer.net; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:02:19 -0500 From: "Hondin de Goot" To: asrg@ietf.org X-Originating-Ip: 195.11.247.14 X-Originating-Server: ws1-8.us4.outblaze.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] As requested Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 02 Jul 2003 15:02:19 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark Carron wrote: > Why not actually join the debate on 'GIEIS' instead of posting > subject matters that have nothing to do with this group? OK: The only reason why "spam" is a TECHNICAL NETWORKING problem is because it is almost cost-free to the SENDER. (1) In the short to medium term Devise a method of reasonably reliably identifying bulk spam, UCE or UBE and levying a charge on the senders (via any of their upstream carriers, financial pain having the properties that it does) which approaches that of any other method of commercial or non-private bulk message delivery and most of the TECHNICAL NETWORKING problems associated with spam - which are almost entirely due intractable volumes of traffic - would rapidly disappear. Furthermore, the relatively small community subsumed under the identity "upstream carriers" and its heavy dependence on an even smaller number of common interconnects and transit agreements essential to maintaining the quality/marketability of its product (not excluding the attractiveness of its product to spammers) would greatly reduce the difficulty of reaching, the task of implementing and the central cost of policing any agreement: most dispute resolution would tend to move towards end users and "leaf AS"s on the one hand, less towards established *IX or their fora on the other. The politically difficult part - arriving at basic definitions and a workable system of collections - which would be simplified by being largely effected at industry rather than governmental level, though some arm twisting by legislators might well be required, would best be progressed through those fora or some especially constituted offshoots of them, while the technically difficult part, appropriate for discussion here, would lie in the automation of identification and settlements. (2) In the longer term Reformulate the basics of the mail transport protocol. That, however, is a MUCH longer term project than is evident to any but a few of those who do not have to wrestle daily with keeping even reasonably loaded current systems financed and running, let alone implementing and installing major upgrades, or those who have little idea of the vast amount of installed infrastructure that would have to be replaced or accommodated. Furthermore, it is an extremely rigorous field only peripherally amenable to inputs from here. SMTP may be unequal to the UNRESTRAINED stresses of a primarily commercial Internet, but it is by no means a simple minded mail transport protocol and it is not at all obvious that it would so urgently need significant overhaul in an environment where some reasonable degree of financial regulation replaced the original institutional regulation. In fact, like many of the basic Internet services, not excluding post-CIDR IPv4, it has scaled extraordinarily well. That's it. ANY concern with content or personal identification of the senders of email that is not, outside of the envelope, a TECHNICAL problem is no part of an appropriate TECHNICAL solution to the NETWORKING problems of bulk spam/UCE/UBE. With a sheet of paper, a pen, a postage stamp, an envelope and a public mail box it is possible to send an anonymous letter, lawful or otherwise, on any subject, to any person, institution or business behind a physical mail box. Any solution to the TECHNICAL NETWORKING problems of spam, etc, which renders Internet email - already inherently much more traceable than most postal mail - even less able to handle securely the communications of whistle blowers, or political or social dissidents in Western or other jurisdictions, or criminals, or little old grannies sending unattributed uplift to psychiatric outpatients, whatever, as well as the mundane, everyday drivel of normal communication, is a solution which injects political and social considerations to the relative detriment of electronic mail vis-a-vis the traditional mail it is rapidly supplanting. And is therefore unacceptable. And any solution which involves analysis of message headers or bodies beyond that required by legislation enacted in the specific originating, transit or destination jurisdictions involved represents a gross invasion of personal privacy or commercial confidence (and I'm doubtful of granting authority to mere transit jurisdictions). The proper place to impose political, social or commercial control on the contents of either postal mail or electronic mail is not from within some demented center of globalized electronic surveillance. It is not worth addressing any even more bizarrely ignorant proposals which put forward tecnhical abuse of the network, from port scanning on up, as some kind valid control system. Although Usenet is now largely (but, even yet, by any means entirely) transported via NNTP, it is no part of the remit of a TECHNICAL NETWORKING group, only loosely associated with only one of its transmission protocols, to attempt to control its content in any way other than from within Usenet's own already well-established and effective control structures. It is not encumbent on any ISP/IAP to provide a full (or any) net news feed to its subscribers, and UDP is readily available to any subset of news administrators who wish to apply it as an ultimate remedy for the perceived transgressions of others. The only politically mandated form of legal tender is currency and while numerous commercial enterprises, each with their own private, non-social agendas, offer alternatives - often, and probably not without some foundation in fact, rumoured to have significant to massive internal problems with security, fraud and identity theft - in view of their fundamental opacity in those regards they comprise no valid basis of any sort for any mandatory access system within the public Internet at any level. I am not a fully-combined brain surgeon+architect, accountant registered in the British Isles (sic) + renowned egyptologist, theoretical physicist, etc, and, although I have forgotten more about networking than - I am sorry to say - it is obvious that some of those poncing^h^h^h^htificating about in this list have yet learned, or probably ever will learn, neither do I have, anymore, the energy to input the sort of technical diligence and effort that most technical networking problems, not least this one, require. However, that is no great loss as many absolutely better technical brains that could, hopefully will, find viable TECHNICAL solutions to the TECHNICAL components of the problem at hand, without imposing spurious limitations or introducing intrusive socio-political constraints, also subscribe here and in other equally competent mileau. Which is why I have left it to them both until now and from now on. As an aside, some of the more mouthily ignorant reading here undoubtedly already knew, in an a priori kind of way associated with a prescient understanding of all technologies unto all (wo)men, that an SMTP server is that process in an SMTP transaction which receives mail and an SMTP client is that process which sends it. And that POP3/IMAP mail queues are, for the most part, fed with messages received by SMTP servers acting in their usual role of MTAs. They just briefly forgot it. Finally, although I'm not a polymathic genius, even of the psychiatric recidivist sort, nevertheless I do know a vapid wannabe-Mr-Big timewaster trying to pass off a lazy streak of intellectual self indulgence with an unjustifiable illusion of superiority under the cover of a fraudulent facility with undigested concepts when I see one, and I also know how subtly but basically destructive of constructive group effort - particularly the inputs of the socially naive, which are thereby wasted beyond measure and excuse - such posturing almost inevitably is, however beneficent it appears to be en passant. And, even for a dog, it's a relatively trivial exercise in network forensics to establish with near certainty that the previous deranged postings of a technical incompetent did indeed originate with the same, in exactly the form they currently have, thus casting (to use a technical term) denials as self serving lies, aimed at asserting unquestioned "authority" in a field where it has not earned, through the sheer, hard work of researching the systems involved, the right to be asserted. Nothing wrong with learning on the job, provided it is from an attitude of supplication. Now, where's that unsubscribe button? Ah, here i -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 16:09:10 2003 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 QAA10581 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:09:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XnuG-0000WC-9n for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:08:44 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62K8iOA001986 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:08:44 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XnuG-0000Vx-5a for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:08:44 -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 QAA10569; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:08:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XnuC-0006m2-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:08:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XnuC-0006lz-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:08:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XntZ-0000NS-IN; Wed, 02 Jul 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 19XntK-0000Jh-Vm for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:07:47 -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 QAA10547 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:07:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XntH-0006lH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:07:43 -0400 Received: from 000-257-002.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.243.209] helo=68.27.243.209) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XntC-0006lA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:07:42 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702155950.00bd5138@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Markus Stumpf , "Asrg@Ietf. Org" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal In-Reply-To: <20030702184054.B82235@Space.Net> References: <20030702015753.F74353@Space.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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:07:15 -0400 At 06:40 PM 7/2/2003 +0200, Markus Stumpf wrote: >On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 09:38:22AM +0100, Danny Angus wrote: > > What does work are the mechanisms which exist for propogating and > > revoking trust, that you don't trust anyone is a completely different > issue. > >Ok, what are the "mechanisms which exist for propogating and revoking trust"? >Newspapers? I don't know of any technically oriented ones. Or more >specifically: What do I have to do so that my browser can check whether >a SSL cert for a website has been revoked? See RFC 2459, sections 5 and 3.3 and RFC 2560 In Internet Explorer options screen (IE6), under "Advanced", "Security", the first two options listed are: "Check for publisher's certificate revocation" "Check for server certificate revocation" Netscape 7 and Mozilla include an option in under "Security", "Validation" to use the Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) to verify certificates. This protocol is defined in RFC 2560. Funny enough Opera 7 has none of these options but IE does. Weird. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 16:11:09 2003 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 QAA10657 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:11:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XnwB-0000ed-BV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:10:43 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62KAhvf002509 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:10:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XnwB-0000eO-8W for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:10:43 -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 QAA10632; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:10:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xnw7-0006nY-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:10:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xnw7-0006nV-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:10:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XnvV-0000Xn-7l; Wed, 02 Jul 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 19Xnum-0000Wf-S8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:09:16 -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 QAA10586 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:09:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xnuj-0006mW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:09:13 -0400 Received: from usergg026.dsl.pipex.com ([62.190.174.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xnui-0006m6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:09:12 -0400 Received: from cenderis.demon.co.uk ([62.49.17.254]) by usergg026.dsl.pipex.com via TCP (with SMTP (internal)) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:08:37 +0100 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Warning people of "intent to send" large quantities of email References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701203350.00bd2df8@std5.imagineis.com> <3F02CA1F.2020905@garbagedump.com> <16131.12441.265856.202223@world.std.com> From: Bruce Stephens In-Reply-To: <16131.12441.265856.202223@world.std.com> (Barry Shein's message of "Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:20:57 -0400") Message-ID: <84y8zgsnct.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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:08:34 +0100 Barry Shein writes: [...] > 2. If the purpose of spam is to sell something then the spammer or > their client has a business nexus within the country being spammed, > with a few exceptions (stock pumping or selling vacation homes in > the foreign country or whatever, hardly an objection tho.) If only! My isode.com address doesn't scream out my country of residence, but I regularly receive spam to my .demon.co.uk home address which is obviously not intended for people outside the US. (Sometimes it even says that the "offer" doesn't apply outside the US.) Spammers really don't seem to discriminate that much according to country. And you omitted various electronic products, specifically porn web sites for which spam isn't unusual. [...] > 4. Believe it or not other countries are capable of passing decent > laws, one has to have some faith that if someone leads others will > follow and pass their own anti-spam laws and enforce them in > response to complaints. > > Few govts have any real interest in letting spammers roam free as > much as they may just be a little slow to act. Very true. If the US passes effective legislation, it's likely that EU countries will pass similarly effective legislation, if not more effective. [...] _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 16:18:38 2003 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 QAA11698 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:18:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xo3R-0001WY-2c for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:18:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62KIDbO005854 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:18:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xo3Q-0001WL-U7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:18:12 -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 QAA11603; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:18:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xo3N-0006yr-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:18:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xo3M-0006yo-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:18:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xo3F-0001Pu-BW; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:18:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xo2Z-0001HR-Mi for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:17:19 -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 QAA11521 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:17:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xo2W-0006wx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:17:16 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xo2U-0006wt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:17:15 -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 h62KGnsQ009975; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:16:55 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA01955; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:16:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16131.15783.659227.624889@world.std.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 6. Solutions - Longterm - Replacing SMTP (Re: [Asrg] Bogus reasoning) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702115237.00bc8158@std5.imagineis.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702115237.00bc8158@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, 2 Jul 2003 16:16:39 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On July 2, 2003 at 11:56 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > However, should we be considering a solution that replaces the email > infrastructure as a long term answer to spam? Personally I think we should, with the following reasoning: 1. The (modern) spam problem has been around for at least 7 years, I have discussion notes with many of the same topics going back to at least 1996. Since we're still not making much progress I think it'd be a bad idea to cut off ideas, de facto, just because they have a longer horizon. 2. This is not to say that proposals with a longer horizon should in any way preclude ideas with a shorter adoption period. But as I see it, given the seven-plus year history, it may be unwise to rely only on the possibility that someone is going to come up with a quick fix. 3. It's not clear how to measure these claims that certain changes would require years and years to adopt. Although it might be reasonable to claim that it'd be years before a major new mail protocol were adopted universally, how much of the net would have to adopt it before it'd make a significant difference in spam reduction? For example, if the top 10 ISPs were to adopt some sort of significant infrastructure change which reduced spam passing through or to them wouldn't that likely reduce all spam significantly, even if it only represented a .0001% adoption? (this of course presumes some sort of continued inter-operability with non-adopters.) 4. Just the same, having looked at some of the suggested alternatives to SMTP, I'm not sure they're quite what they're claimed to be. By and large SMTP is just another little text-based: VERB [NOUN]* protocol (HELO host.name, MAIL FROM:, etc.) The proposals I've seen just add some new verbs, possibly with the intention of replacing some existing verbs, but otherwise are pretty much the same thing. SMTP has had verbs added before (EHLO, ETRN, etc.) One could even imply a major change in implementation (e.g., extensibility) and not really change the protocol much beyond adding some new verbs. -- -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 Jul 2 16:29:30 2003 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 QAA12167 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:29:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XoDw-00025p-EW for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:29:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62KT42u008046 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:29:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XoDw-00025h-B5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:29:04 -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 QAA12148; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:28:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XoDs-0007DF-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:29:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XoDs-0007DC-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:29:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XoDt-00023n-9F; Wed, 02 Jul 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 19XoDV-000234-4k for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:28:37 -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 QAA12138 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:28:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XoDR-0007Cu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:28:33 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XoDQ-0007Cr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:28:33 -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 h62KSVBG022638; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:28:31 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA04299; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:28:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16131.16494.928432.694781@world.std.com> To: "C. Wegrzyn" Cc: gep2@terabites.com, Yakov Shafranovich , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 6. Solutions - Longterm - Replacing SMTP (Re: [Asrg] Bogus reasoning) In-Reply-To: <3F0308D8.2080704@garbagedump.com> References: <3F0308D8.2080704@garbagedump.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, 2 Jul 2003 16:28:30 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On July 2, 2003 at 12:31 wegrzyn@garbagedump.com (C. Wegrzyn) wrote: > That is exactly what I have been saying, on and off, for the past month > or so (when I thought it was wise to stop lurking). The only really > solution to the problem is a receiver side solution, whether it happens > at the client or the MTA for the user. I believe that to be exactly wrong, and not just to be argumentative. The problems are: No such solution has been laid out which would discourage a spammer from continuing to try to find victims. Many end-user solutions suffer from adoptability problems, complexity of usage (e.g., managing a Bayesian filtering system or whitelist.) Being as spammers seem to be using upwards of millions (we don't know, certainly thousands and thousands) of infected, hijacked hosts the real possibility is that the net and mail servers in particular will become so flooded with spam that it will cause the mail infrastructure and many of its assumptions to fail in various ways (as it is already.) Independent of other observations there seems to be some agreement that spam traffic is increasing exponentially. How long can that go on before we have significant infrastructure problems (even if just in cost)? It remains to be proven whether spammers increase or decrease their traffic in the face of discouragement (such as filters.) There is reason to believe that in fact they increase their traffic when confronted with various filtering etc, even if for no other reason than the simple observation that for the past few years more and more filtering has been put in place, and spam has grown rapidly nonetheless. Maybe it's a coincidence, maybe it's correlated: Their cost is so low (using stolen/hijacked resources) that it becomes worth their while to try less focused brute-force approaches when challenged by filtering etc. Put another way, the end-user/recipient proposals thus far are plagued with the "arms race" problem. -- -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 Jul 2 16:31:30 2003 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 QAA12451 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:31:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XoFt-0002HV-1f for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:31:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62KV58s008768 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:31:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XoFs-0002HL-Qy for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:31:04 -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 QAA12323; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:30:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XoFp-0007Ev-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:31:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XoFo-0007Es-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:31:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XoFo-0002DG-GX; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:31:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XoF0-0002Bu-HX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:30:10 -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 QAA12208 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:30:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XoEx-0007EA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:30:07 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XoEw-0007E7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:30:06 -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 <20030702203156.JEFM28645.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:31:56 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0340D5.7020202@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: Barry Shein CC: Yakov Shafranovich , gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 6. Solutions - Longterm - Replacing SMTP (Re: [Asrg] Bogus reasoning) References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702115237.00bc8158@std5.imagineis.com> <16131.15783.659227.624889@world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <16131.15783.659227.624889@world.std.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, 02 Jul 2003 16:30:13 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barry Shein wrote: >On July 2, 2003 at 11:56 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > > However, should we be considering a solution that replaces the email > > infrastructure as a long term answer to spam? > >Personally I think we should, with the following reasoning: > >1. The (modern) spam problem has been around for at least 7 years, > I have discussion notes with many of the same topics going back > to at least 1996. > > Since we're still not making much progress I think it'd be a bad > idea to cut off ideas, de facto, just because they have a longer > horizon. > > Actually if memory serves me the first spam was sent by some guy at DEC when the Internet was still tightly controlled. I always thought the AUP was silly. >2. This is not to say that proposals with a longer horizon should in > any way preclude ideas with a shorter adoption period. But as I see > it, given the seven-plus year history, it may be unwise to rely > only on the possibility that someone is going to come up with a > quick fix. > >3. It's not clear how to measure these claims that certain changes > would require years and years to adopt. > > Although it might be reasonable to claim that it'd be years before > a major new mail protocol were adopted universally, how much of the > net would have to adopt it before it'd make a significant > difference in spam reduction? > > For example, if the top 10 ISPs were to adopt some sort of > significant infrastructure change which reduced spam passing > through or to them wouldn't that likely reduce all spam > significantly, even if it only represented a .0001% adoption? > > (this of course presumes some sort of continued inter-operability > with non-adopters.) > > I find this very hard to believe. I get so little spam from AOL, MSN or Yahoo now a days I doubt it would have any impact on the few hundred I get every day! >4. Just the same, having looked at some of the suggested alternatives > to SMTP, I'm not sure they're quite what they're claimed to be. > > By and large SMTP is just another little text-based: > > VERB [NOUN]* > > protocol (HELO host.name, MAIL FROM:, etc.) > > The proposals I've seen just add some new verbs, possibly with the > intention of replacing some existing verbs, but otherwise are > pretty much the same thing. > > SMTP has had verbs added before (EHLO, ETRN, etc.) > > One could even imply a major change in implementation (e.g., > extensibility) and not really change the protocol much beyond > adding some new verbs. > > On this point I agree. Chuck Wegrzyn _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 16:38:12 2003 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 QAA14570 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:38:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XoMG-0003tL-IZ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:37:44 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62KbeSe014953 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:37:40 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XoMG-0003t6-BW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:37:40 -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 QAA14516; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:37:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XoLc-0003YA-R3; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:37:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XoKx-0003VF-BY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:36:19 -0400 Received: from TheWorld.com (pcls1.std.com [199.172.62.103]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14139 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:36:13 -0400 (EDT) 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 h62KZNBG000801; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:35:23 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA05997; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:35:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16131.16906.286142.836930@world.std.com> To: "David Koblas" Cc: , Subject: Re: [Asrg] Remote mailing In-Reply-To: <03d701c340b6$9e2a8c80$1002010a@corp.mailfrontier.com> References: <03d701c340b6$9e2a8c80$1002010a@corp.mailfrontier.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, 2 Jul 2003 16:35:22 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "David Koblas" >Spam at one level is a security problem, it's the allowance of non-validated >sender to send messages impersonating other users. Certainly a lot of spam does this, but it's not clear this is critical to spam. A fair number of spammers send from domains they probably own, cheapmortgages.com and that kind of thing, so who's to say that's an impersonation of any sort? Others send from domains with fraudulent intent, but which likely would slip by most proposed systems, such as xyz@yah00.com (those are two zeros) or joe@aol-mailserver.com (not real examples but similar to real examples, a common real example I see is whatever@hotmial.com). -- -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 Jul 2 16:39:01 2003 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 QAA14665 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:39:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XoN9-0004Uj-Pt for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:38:35 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62KcZPV017065 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:38:35 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XoN8-0004RA-CH for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:38:34 -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 QAA14624; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:38:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XoMc-0003y0-G9; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:38:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XoMT-0003w4-R2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:37:53 -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 QAA14527 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:37:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XoMQ-0007Tp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:37:50 -0400 Received: from mxsmta01.inithost.com ([209.235.30.103] helo=mxsmta01.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XoML-0007TI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:37:46 -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 <20030702203919.ICAH6624.mxsmta01.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:39:19 -0400 Message-ID: <3F03428E.2010401@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: Barry Shein CC: gep2@terabites.com, Yakov Shafranovich , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 6. Solutions - Longterm - Replacing SMTP (Re: [Asrg] Bogus reasoning) References: <3F0308D8.2080704@garbagedump.com> <16131.16494.928432.694781@world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <16131.16494.928432.694781@world.std.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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:37:34 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barry, What you are saying here is in line with an earlier statement I made. The economics are all screwed up for Internet usage. The strength of the Internet is the flat pricing - it has afforded a lot of new opportunities, like VoIP (and Vonage, for instance). On the other hand it has given us the spam problem. I believe the only real alternative is for every ISP (and this can be done I believe) to take on a per-email transaction fee. Chuck Wegrzyn Barry Shein wrote: >On July 2, 2003 at 12:31 wegrzyn@garbagedump.com (C. Wegrzyn) wrote: > > That is exactly what I have been saying, on and off, for the past month > > or so (when I thought it was wise to stop lurking). The only really > > solution to the problem is a receiver side solution, whether it happens > > at the client or the MTA for the user. > >I believe that to be exactly wrong, and not just to be argumentative. > >The problems are: > >No such solution has been laid out which would discourage a spammer >from continuing to try to find victims. Many end-user solutions suffer >from adoptability problems, complexity of usage (e.g., managing a >Bayesian filtering system or whitelist.) > >Being as spammers seem to be using upwards of millions (we don't know, >certainly thousands and thousands) of infected, hijacked hosts the >real possibility is that the net and mail servers in particular will >become so flooded with spam that it will cause the mail infrastructure >and many of its assumptions to fail in various ways (as it is >already.) > >Independent of other observations there seems to be some agreement >that spam traffic is increasing exponentially. How long can that go on >before we have significant infrastructure problems (even if just in >cost)? > >It remains to be proven whether spammers increase or decrease their >traffic in the face of discouragement (such as filters.) > >There is reason to believe that in fact they increase their traffic >when confronted with various filtering etc, even if for no other >reason than the simple observation that for the past few years more >and more filtering has been put in place, and spam has grown rapidly >nonetheless. > >Maybe it's a coincidence, maybe it's correlated: > >Their cost is so low (using stolen/hijacked resources) that it becomes >worth their while to try less focused brute-force approaches when >challenged by filtering etc. > >Put another way, the end-user/recipient proposals thus far are plagued >with the "arms race" problem. > > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 16:44:12 2003 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 QAA15436 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:44:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XoSB-00056Q-0y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:43:47 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62Khlxt019608 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:43:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XoSA-00056B-Su for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:43:46 -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 QAA15394; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:43:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XoRR-00052R-6X; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:43:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XoR7-00052C-9D for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:42:41 -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 QAA15279 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:42:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XoR2-0007bu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:42:37 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr9.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XoR2-0007bm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:42:36 -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 PHJ27190; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:42:26 -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 AJY46126; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:42:25 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within consent paradigm Message-ID: <004001c340da$73eb3b30$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 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702154710.00b4e230@std5.imagineis.com> 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, 2 Jul 2003 16:42:28 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > the bottom line is that any message that a human=20 > receiver does not want - does not consent to, is=20 > considering spam according to that person. I don't buy it. Such a definition erases the distinctions between different kinds of unwanted messages and in so doing removes from discussion what may be useful information. It may be "politically correct" to say that all unwanted mail is spam, however, I strongly believe that taking such a fundamentalist position is not conducive to the normally objective process of design. If you force all "unwanted messages" into the single category of "spam" then you have either ignored existing distinctions or you have just declared "spam" to be synonymous with "unwanted message". Thus, your definition: "spam is any unwanted message" is simply a tautology. i.e. "Spam is Spam". bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 16:47:25 2003 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 QAA15785 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:47:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XoVH-0005Q6-SZ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:47:00 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62Kkxn4020830 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:46:59 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XoVH-0005Pt-OS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:46:59 -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 QAA15715; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:46:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XoUL-0005II-4y; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:46:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XoUC-0005G5-M7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:45:52 -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 QAA15652 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:45:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XoU6-0007kS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:45:46 -0400 Received: from tarbolton.demon.co.uk ([212.229.119.215] helo=killerbees.co.uk) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XoU4-0007kE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:45:45 -0400 Received: from mailtest ([192.168.0.2]) by killerbees.co.uk (JAMES SMTP Server 3.0a1) with SMTP ID 290 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:00:48 +0100 (BST) From: "Danny Angus" 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 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <20030702190713.C82235@Space.Net> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Trust, misunderstood? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 2 Jul 2003 21:48:56 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, There's been some talk about trust systems recently, I think I instigated some of it, and I feel that a number of comments have been made which kind of miss the point about trust. I'd like to outline my take on trust and why I believe trust should be considered by this group. First off trust isn't an absolute. Realistically I can only trust people I know, and even then I could misjudge them. To rely on another person's judgement is more risky still. It is also all wrong to think of trust as YES or NO, there are degrees of trust, some people we'd trust with our lives, others with our car keys, yet more with our phone numbers. We don't say YES or NO to the phone number guys, we say "I trust you just enough not to abuse this information" Secondly in existing trust mechanisms it is possible, but not widely used, for end users to make decisions about whom of trust issuers they will trust, and accept the judgement of in assessing an unknown third party. For example It is possible to score PGP keys according to who I trust and why, my immediate circle get full marks, those known to them will be assumed to have a high degree of trust worthiness, and so on. When I encouter a third party I can make a judgement according to how many of the people I trust, and how much I trust them, have signed the certificate. Likewise revocation could have a detrimental affect if a close associate of mine has revoked their trust, less effect if I don't trust the revoker. SSL certificates can be revoked if client software actually bothers to check revokation lists. Now Email: Forming a judgement about whether or not to trust, and to what extent, an unknown sending MTA is about much more than checking a certificate. Of course a signed certificate, signed by someone I trust, can influence my decision, like wise I can consider RBL's and other blacklists, reverse DNS etc, etc. I could attempt to relay mail through a suspect host myself if I'm suspicious. So what I propose for the basis of a trust system would be for a mechanism by which SMTP can temporarily block a transaction in order for the recipient to carry out checks and create a trust score for the sending MTA. If this mechanism provides for the optional exchange of certificates these can be included in the calculation. My Trust system would allow mail admins to set rules and thresholds for trust, allowing admins to raise and lower the barrier of trust which could be crossed *automatically* by well behaved hosts. Other hosts could be rejected out of hand or sin-binned until a more thourough check is carried out. I could offer my scores to my friends. Who, if they trust my judgement, could use this to help in making their judgement. The commercial madness which is the "installed root CA certificates" of the browsers is idiotic, I have no reason at all to trust verisign or thawte who are those guys?!? But if my (they are respectable!) ISP had signed a certificate, or offered me their tust rating for a host I'd be much more likely to trust that host a bit. Unfortunately I'm going away for a week so I won't be able to respond to anyones comments (or flames!) 'till I get back. d. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 16:55:41 2003 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 QAA16799 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:55:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XodI-0005aW-On for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:55:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62KtGtx021474 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:55:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XodI-0005aH-Ki for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:55:16 -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 QAA16749; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:55:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XodE-0000Jj-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:55:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XodD-0000Jg-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:55:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xod4-0005YM-3i; Wed, 02 Jul 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 19XocX-0005XR-5E for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:54:29 -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 QAA16651 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:54:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XocT-0000Hn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:54:25 -0400 Received: from 000-257-002.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.243.209] helo=68.27.243.209) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XocQ-0000HF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:54:23 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702165343.00ba7ce0@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: , From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within consent paradigm 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, 02 Jul 2003 16:53:44 -0400 At 04:42 PM 7/2/2003 -0400, Bob Wyman wrote: >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > the bottom line is that any message that a human > > receiver does not want - does not consent to, is > > considering spam according to that person. > I don't buy it. Such a definition erases the distinctions >between different kinds of unwanted messages and in so doing removes >from discussion what may be useful information. > It may be "politically correct" to say that all unwanted mail is >spam, however, I strongly believe that taking such a fundamentalist >position is not conducive to the normally objective process of design. > If you force all "unwanted messages" into the single category of >"spam" then you have either ignored existing distinctions or you have >just declared "spam" to be synonymous with "unwanted message". Thus, >your definition: "spam is any unwanted message" is simply a tautology. >i.e. "Spam is Spam". Well, I guess the bottom line is that we all agree that we disagree - everyone's definition of spam is different. But for the purposes of the consent framework do we even need to define spam? Or should we just provide the mechanisms and framework, and let each individual implementor, end-user and ISP decide on their definitions? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 16:57:28 2003 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 QAA16897 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:57:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xof1-0005mS-Nj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:57:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62Kv3Po022215 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:57:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xof1-0005mE-Km for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:57:03 -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 QAA16887; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:56:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xoex-0000N9-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:56:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xoex-0000N6-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:56:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xoey-0005kJ-UZ; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:57:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XoeD-0005dp-EB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:56:13 -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 QAA16836 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:56:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xoe9-0000LX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:56:09 -0400 Received: from 000-257-002.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.243.209] helo=68.27.243.209) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xoe7-0000LD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:56:08 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702165403.00bddec0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Danny Angus" , From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Trust, misunderstood? In-Reply-To: References: <20030702190713.C82235@Space.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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:55:43 -0400 At 09:48 PM 7/2/2003 +0100, Danny Angus wrote: >Hi all, > >There's been some talk about trust systems recently, I think I instigated >some of it, and I feel that a number of comments have been made which kind >of miss the point about trust. I'd like to outline my take on trust and why >I believe trust should be considered by this group. > >First off trust isn't an absolute. Realistically I can only trust people I >know, and even then I could misjudge them. To rely on another person's >judgement is more risky still. It is also all wrong to think of trust as YES >or NO, there are degrees of trust, some people we'd trust with our lives, >others with our car keys, yet more with our phone numbers. We don't say YES >or NO to the phone number guys, we say "I trust you just enough not to abuse >this information" > >Secondly in existing trust mechanisms it is possible, but not widely used, >for end users to make decisions about whom of trust issuers they will trust, >and accept the judgement of in assessing an unknown third party. >[..] The trust problem has been mentioned in one of the Internet Drafts written by IAB (http://www.iab.org/drafts/draft-iab-e2e-futures-02.txt): ---snip--- 3.1 Lack of Trust Perhaps the single most important change from the Internet of 15 years ago is the lack of trust between end nodes. Because the end users in the Internet of 15 years ago were few, and were largely dedicated to using the Internet as a tool for computer science research and for communicating research results, trust between end users (and thus between the end nodes that they use) and between network operators and their users was simply not an issue in general. Today, the motivations of some individuals using the Internet are not always entirely ethical, and, even if they are, the assumption that end nodes will always co-operate to achieve some mutually beneficial action, as implied by the end to end principle, is not always accurate. In addition, the growth in users who are either not technologically sophisticated enough or simply uninterested in maintaining their own security has required network operators to become more proactive in deploying measures to prevent naive or uninterested users from inadvertently or intentionally generating security problems. One of the most common examples of network elements interposing between end hosts are those dedicated to security: firewalls, VPN tunnel endpoints, certificate servers, etc. These intermediaries are designed to protect the network from unimpeded attack or to allow two end nodes that may have no inherent reason to trust each other to achieve some level of trust; but, at the same time, they act as impediments for end to end communications. ----snip---- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 16:58:28 2003 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 QAA17007 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:58:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xofz-0005yT-LN for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:58:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62Kw3ht022946 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:58:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xofz-0005y0-Fb for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:58:03 -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 QAA16927; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:57:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xofv-0000O5-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:57:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xofu-0000O1-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:57:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xofx-0005sK-3w; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:58:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xofa-0005rI-LL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 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 QAA16915 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:57:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XofW-0000Nb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:57:34 -0400 Received: from 000-257-002.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.243.209] helo=68.27.243.209) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XofU-0000NV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:57:33 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702165647.00ba7e20@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] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within con sent paradigm 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, 02 Jul 2003 16:57:06 -0400 >From: "Olson, Margaret" >To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" >Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within con > sent paradigm >Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:12:04 -0400 >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) > > >One issue that seems to me to be missing from the consent discussions >(pardon me if I just missed it amid the noise) is the problem of sender >authentication. On the Internet no one knows you are a dog - and therefore >no one knows you are not Disney either. My concern is that it will be all >to easy to obtain consent tokens by pretending to be someone you aren't. I >have already seen spam that purports to be a subscription confirmation >message (confirmed opt in) where the sender is spoofed. > >(Contrary to popular belief, I have no problem with requiring consent to >send mail.) > >Margaret. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Yakov Shafranovich >[mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] >Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 12:46 PM >To: asrg@ietf.org >Subject: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within >consent paradigm > >Before every jumps on me for reopening this can of worms again, I would >like to state that this definition only applies to spam WITHIN the consent >paradigm: > >spam = "any email that does not have consent from the receiver" > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jul 2 16:58:31 2003 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 QAA17022 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:58:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xofz-0005yV-ME for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:58:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62Kw3LA022952 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:58:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xofz-0005y1-Fm for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:58:03 -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 QAA16928; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:57:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xofv-0000O8-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:57:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xofu-0000O2-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:57:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xofw-0005rp-OS; Wed, 02 Jul 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 19XofL-0005r3-Jh for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:57:23 -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 QAA16895 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:57:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XofH-0000NQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:57:19 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XofH-0000NN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:57:19 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip70-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.70]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AC41F3694E for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:57:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:57:15 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal: Separate ISP(s) for "guaranteed delivery" of email Message-ID: <20030702165715.A6542@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> <20030630022018.A2266@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 Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 12:57:22PM -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: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:57:15 -0400 On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 12:57:22PM -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote > At 2:20 AM -0400 6/30/03, Walter Dnes wrote: > >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. > > But in the case of you sending a purchase question to a five > companies, it's the *company* that cares most about getting the > message delivered. You don't care much if one doesn't make it. They > do. How much do they care; 75 cents' worth ? It's their decision, just like with snail-mail versus courirer. -- 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 Jul 2 17:02:59 2003 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 RAA17440 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:02:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XokM-0006QW-2W for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:02:34 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62L2YUX024701 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:02:34 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XokL-0006QK-Ve for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:02:33 -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 RAA17410; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:02:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xojp-0006Ja-1s; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:02:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XojN-0006Iy-AS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:01:33 -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 RAA17377 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:01:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XojJ-0000Wv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:01:29 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XojI-0000Wp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:01:28 -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 <20030702210318.JOQX28645.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:03:18 -0400 Message-ID: <3F03482F.8040804@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: Danny Angus CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Trust, misunderstood? 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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:01:35 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Danny, Other than providing a means for parties to accepting "trusting" senders, this is exactly what I implemented. I assumed that OOB was used to validate the trust. I didn't use PGP but felt CA's were the better way to go (personal belief). Chuck Wegrzyn Danny Angus wrote: >Hi all, > >There's been some talk about trust systems recently, I think I instigated >some of it, and I feel that a number of comments have been made which kind >of miss the point about trust. I'd like to outline my take on trust and why >I believe trust should be considered by this group. > >First off trust isn't an absolute. Realistically I can only trust people I >know, and even then I could misjudge them. To rely on another person's >judgement is more risky still. It is also all wrong to think of trust as YES >or NO, there are degrees of trust, some people we'd trust with our lives, >others with our car keys, yet more with our phone numbers. We don't say YES >or NO to the phone number guys, we say "I trust you just enough not to abuse >this information" > >Secondly in existing trust mechanisms it is possible, but not widely used, >for end users to make decisions about whom of trust issuers they will trust, >and accept the judgement of in assessing an unknown third party. > >For example It is possible to score PGP keys according to who I trust and >why, my immediate circle get full marks, those known to them will be assumed >to have a high degree of trust worthiness, and so on. When I encouter a >third party I can make a judgement according to how many of the people I >trust, and how much I trust them, have signed the certificate. > >Likewise revocation could have a detrimental affect if a close associate of >mine has revoked their trust, less effect if I don't trust the revoker. > >SSL certificates can be revoked if client software actually bothers to check >revokation lists. > >Now Email: > >Forming a judgement about whether or not to trust, and to what extent, an >unknown sending MTA is about much more than checking a certificate. >Of course a signed certificate, signed by someone I trust, can influence my >decision, like wise I can consider RBL's and other blacklists, reverse DNS >etc, etc. I could attempt to relay mail through a suspect host myself if I'm >suspicious. > >So what I propose for the basis of a trust system would be for a mechanism >by which SMTP can temporarily block a transaction in order for the recipient >to carry out checks and create a trust score for the sending MTA. > >If this mechanism provides for the optional exchange of certificates these >can be included in the calculation. > >My Trust system would allow mail admins to set rules and thresholds for >trust, allowing admins to raise and lower the barrier of trust which could >be crossed *automatically* by well behaved hosts. Other hosts could be >rejected out of hand or sin-binned until a more thourough check is carried >out. > >I could offer my scores to my friends. Who, if they trust my judgement, >could use this to help in making their judgement. > >The commercial madness which is the "installed root CA certificates" of the >browsers is idiotic, I have no reason at all to trust verisign or thawte who >are those guys?!? But if my (they are respectable!) ISP had signed a >certificate, or offered me their tust rating for a host I'd be much more >likely to trust that host a bit. > >Unfortunately I'm going away for a week so I won't be able to respond to >anyones comments (or flames!) 'till I get back. > >d. > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jul 2 17:04:56 2003 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 RAA17535 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:04:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XomF-0006YA-L8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:04:31 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62L4VPt025175 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:04:31 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XomF-0006Xy-H2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:04:31 -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 RAA17516; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:04:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xolk-0006RQ-MY; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:04:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xokv-0006Qo-G2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:03:09 -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 RAA17458 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:03:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xokr-0000Xx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:03:05 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr9.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xokq-0000Xu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:03:05 -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 PHJ29639; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:02:52 -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 AJY50090; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:02:51 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within consent paradigm Message-ID: <004101c340dd$4ec158f0$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 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702165054.00bd67d0@std5.imagineis.com> 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, 2 Jul 2003 17:02:54 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > for the purposes of the consent framework do we even need=20 > to define spam? Or should we just provide the mechanisms=20 > and framework, and let each individual implementor, end-user=20 > and ISP decide on their definitions? No. The consent framework need not be concerned with whatever arbitrary definition of spam anyone might use. The only thing the framework needs to "understand" is that some mail is sent with consent and other mail is not. If the mechanisms are there, then a thousand definitions of "spam" can be supported transparently. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 17:07:02 2003 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 RAA17800 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:07:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XooH-0006g6-Ms for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:06:37 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62L6bd4025664 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:06:37 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XooH-0006fr-IT for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:06:37 -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 RAA17662; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:06:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xonh-0006ZE-Dd; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:06:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xomv-0006Yq-AO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:05:13 -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 RAA17553 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:05:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xomr-0000Z4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:05:09 -0400 Received: from 000-257-002.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.243.209] helo=68.27.243.209 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xomo-0000Z1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:05:07 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702170421.00bbde58@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] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within consent paradigm In-Reply-To: <004101c340dd$4ec158f0$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702165054.00bd67d0@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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:04:37 -0400 At 05:02 PM 7/2/2003 -0400, Bob Wyman wrote: >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > for the purposes of the consent framework do we even need > > to define spam? Or should we just provide the mechanisms > > and framework, and let each individual implementor, end-user > > and ISP decide on their definitions? > No. The consent framework need not be concerned with whatever >arbitrary definition of spam anyone might use. The only thing the >framework needs to "understand" is that some mail is sent with consent >and other mail is not. If the mechanisms are there, then a thousand >definitions of "spam" can be supported transparently. Thank you. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 17:54:55 2003 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 RAA21541 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:54:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XpYc-00089t-Bj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:54:30 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62LsUlG031359 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:54:30 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XpYc-00089i-4Y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:54:30 -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 RAA21506; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:54:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XpYX-000299-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:54:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XpYX-000296-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:54:25 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XpY9-00086T-3K; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:54:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XpXA-00085p-3w for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:53:00 -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 RAA21443 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:52:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XpX5-00027J-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:52:55 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XpX5-00026T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:52:55 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:36:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:24:19 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Barry Shein'" , "'Yakov Shafranovich'" Cc: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: [Asrg] 2. - Spam Characterization - Possible Measurements (was : RE: 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: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:24:18 -0400 Here is a list of characteristics that I'd put together. They are grouped by sending, source, message, and spam attack characteristics. I've also added the three suggested by Barry. What others should we consider? Sending Characteristics: Forged email addresses Forged HELO domains Forged RCVD hdr Lacking reverse DNS entry Source characteristics: Dial-up accounts Geographic location Relays Proxies Zombie machines Free email services Time-domain analysis (suggested by Barry) Message characteristics: Call for action -URL -email addr -phone num -physical addr Stability of web addresses etc advertised in spam (suggested by Barry) Dates -past -future Size of message Attachments Image usage (web bugs and remote images) MIME type X headers HTML usage -specifc tricks used Spam attack characteristics: How long does a flood last How many recipients The above two based on different approaches such as relays vs proxies etc (based on Barry's #3) How distributed are the recipients How many servers used for the same flood What tools are used How long does it take a new account to be spammed Address harvesting characteristics Dictionary attack characteristics All of the above characteristics can also be viewed over time. > -----Original Message----- > From: Barry Shein [mailto:bzs@world.std.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 3:45 PM > To: Yakov Shafranovich > Cc: Barry Shein; 'asrg@ietf.org' > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam > > > > Well, some ideas: > > 1. Some sort of time-domain analysis of where spam actually comes from > (ip addresses, nets.) > > If it's seemingly random that would point towards the theory > that it's just (presumably illegally) exploited machines. > > If it's coming from specific places with some predictability > then that would lean towards more consent-based conclusions. > > 2. Stability of web addresses etc advertised in spam. > > I've heard it claimed (by one of the speakers at the MIT spam > conf) that the typical lifespan of a spamvertised website is > two hours. > > Again, that sort of instability tends to promote the idea of > spam being a product of criminal behavior. > > 3. Stability of relays > > Similar, but how long does a spam relay spew spam, typically > (what's the distribution)? One hour? 12 hours? Years? And > related summary statistics such as the number of msgs spewed, > the time domain (is it bursty or continuous), etc. > > -b > > On July 1, 2003 at 17:30 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov > Shafranovich) wrote: > At 03:30 PM 7/1/2003 -0400, Barry > Shein wrote: > > > > > > At 03:35 PM 6/29/2003 -0400, Paul Judge wrote: > > > > >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 > > >I will point out that the hard evidence for this is > lacking. > > > >[..] > >More to the point I would assert > that if we don't endeavor to nail > >down hard evidence and > work forward from there we're in great danger > >of > shadow-boxing with our own imaginings about how we would like > to > >think spammers operate. > > > >I realize the urge to > show progress is great and fact-gathering sounds > >like a > frustrating impediment to some, but...how bad would it be if > > >our efforts turned out to be foolish and disconnected from > reality, > >research into a June bug*? > > > Great, what kind of evidence or things should we be > looking for? From > > (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg-work-items.txt): > > > > ---snip--- > > 2.a. Spam Measurements. This works needs to be focused on > immediately. This > > data will help us understand the current weaknesses in the > system and where > > efforts should be focused. Requirements need to be set and > then we have to > > gather the data. I see two separate paths here: One is > based on user survey > > input. Ted Gavin has volunteered to conduct this. The > other data is based > > on real spam measurements. Once the requirements are > gathered, Brightmail, > > CipherTrust, CloudMark and MessageLabs have each > volunteered to contribute > > information. Any other volunteers? > > ---snip-- > > > > As you can see Brightmail, CipherTrust and a bunch of > others agreed to > > provide data. All we need is to define what we are looking for. > > > 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 Wed Jul 2 17:55:27 2003 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 RAA21578 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:55:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XpZ9-0008Kz-2c for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:55:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62Lt3Mg032043 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:55:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XpZ8-0008Kk-S4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:55:02 -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 RAA21563; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:54:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XpZ4-0002A2-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:54:58 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XpZ3-00029z-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:54:57 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XpZ7-0008EI-8s; Wed, 02 Jul 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 19XpZ5-0008Dq-9s for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:54:59 -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 RAA21539 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:54:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XpZ1-00029k-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:54:55 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XpZ0-000295-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:54:54 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:53:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:41:52 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'bob@wyman.us'" , "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within c onsent paradigm 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: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:41:17 -0400 > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Wyman [mailto:bob@wyman.us] > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 5:03 PM > To: 'Yakov Shafranovich'; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining > spam within consent paradigm > > > Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > for the purposes of the consent framework do we even need > > to define spam? Or should we just provide the mechanisms > > and framework, and let each individual implementor, end-user > > and ISP decide on their definitions? > No. The consent framework need not be concerned with > whatever arbitrary definition of spam anyone might use. The > only thing the framework needs to "understand" is that some > mail is sent with consent and other mail is not. If the > mechanisms are there, then a thousand definitions of "spam" > can be supported transparently. > > bob wyman Exactly! _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 18:08:32 2003 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 SAA23134 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:08:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xpln-0000UT-9r for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:08:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62M87qU001879 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:08:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xpln-0000UE-5c for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:08:07 -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 SAA23048; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:08:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xpli-0002cQ-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:08:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xplh-0002cM-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:08:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xplh-0000Qy-G0; Wed, 02 Jul 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 19XplT-0000Nz-Bb for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:07:47 -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 SAA22991 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:07:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XplO-0002ba-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:07:43 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XplO-0002bK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:07:42 -0400 Received: from [65.177.177.95] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2507100; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:07:27 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030702165715.A6542@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> <20030630022018.A2266@m433> <20030702165715.A6542@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: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:07:20 -0400 At 4:57 PM -0400 7/2/03, Walter Dnes wrote: >On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 12:57:22PM -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote >> At 2:20 AM -0400 6/30/03, Walter Dnes wrote: >> >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. >> >> But in the case of you sending a purchase question to a five >> companies, it's the *company* that cares most about getting the >> message delivered. You don't care much if one doesn't make it. They >> do. > > How much do they care; 75 cents' worth ? It's their decision, just >like with snail-mail versus courirer. No. That's a sender decision. I'm talking about a receiver decision. And the problem is that if the receiver starts paying for receipt of messages (e.g. to their sales line) then they are open to a different kind of for-profit 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 Wed Jul 2 18:10:28 2003 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 SAA23649 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:10:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xpng-0000cj-5U for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:10:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62MA4fY002393 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:10:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xpng-0000cW-2Z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:10:04 -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 SAA23499; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:09:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xpnb-0002h8-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:09:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xpna-0002h5-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:09:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xpnd-0000Z2-FZ; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:10:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xpmz-0000Y1-Qq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:09:21 -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 SAA23257 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:09:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xpmu-0002f1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:09:16 -0400 Received: from dns.novitraq.com ([204.92.85.2]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xpmt-0002ep-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:09:15 -0400 Received: from kensington (kensington [204.92.85.4]) by novitraq.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/2.3.0.1402) id NVTRD8320C74 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:05:48 -0400 From: "Elric Pedder" To: Subject: RE: 6. Solutions - Longterm - Replacing SMTP (Re: [Asrg] Bogus reasoning) Organization: Novitraq Inc Message-ID: <009901c340e6$802a08c0$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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3F03428E.2010401@garbagedump.com> 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: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:08:36 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of C. Wegrzyn > Sent: July 2, 2003 16:38 > To: Barry Shein > Cc: gep2@terabites.com; Yakov Shafranovich; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: 6. Solutions - Longterm - Replacing SMTP (Re: > [Asrg] Bogus reasoning) > I believe the only real alternative is for every ISP (and > this can be done I believe) to take on a per-email > transaction fee. This proposal is made quite often, but I cannot see how it would work. SMTP does not require the participation of any ISP other than for the transmission of packets. In order to levy a charge, the ISP would have to monitor your traffic, detect SMTP usage, detect actual e-mail delivery, and bill you for it. What you create is an incentive for users to avoid the detection of SMTP delivery -- a whole new problem. Without getting in to the "big brother" concepts or using some sort of "centralised register of authorised e-mail delivery agents" perhaps ISPs could bill a higher rate for port 25-destined traffic than other traffic, and require that every SMTP transaction contain only one RCPT address. Unfortunately port 25-destined traffic does not actually cost any more than other-port-destined traffic. Therefore in a competitive marketplace prices will be driven down to cost+margin. The only weapon I can think of against market competition is the government. So... would you accept a government tax on e-mail? Ultimately, I just don't see how you could charge for e-mail. -- 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 Wed Jul 2 18:13:38 2003 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 SAA24499 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:13:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xpqi-0001I1-JE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:13:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62MDCdf004951 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:13:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xpqi-0001Hl-FW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:13:12 -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 SAA24369; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:13:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xpqd-0002r2-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:13:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xpqd-0002qz-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:13:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XpqX-0001EW-A6; Wed, 02 Jul 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 19XpqI-0001Ds-MV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:12:46 -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 SAA24276 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:12:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XpqE-0002p3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:12:42 -0400 Received: from bill.lut.ac.uk ([158.125.1.193]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XpqC-0002ok-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:12:40 -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 19Xpq5-0007AT-Ev for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:12:33 +0100 Received: from [158.125.1.122] (helo=bod.lut.ac.uk) by studentpop1.lboro.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 19Xpq5-00011q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:12:33 +0100 Received: from apache by bod.lut.ac.uk with local (Exim 4.12) id 19Xpq5-0001xS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:12:33 +0100 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam Message-ID: <1057183953.3f0358d15c92d@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> From: Andrew Akehurst References: <20030702160005.7369.17123.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> In-Reply-To: <20030702160005.7369.17123.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: 172.185.57.212 X-Spam-Score: -19.2 (-------------------) X-Scanner: exiscan for exim4 (http://duncanthrax.net/exiscan/) *19Xpq5-0007AT-Ev*PHgncWXEsHk* X-Lboro-Filtered: bill.lut.ac.uk, Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:12:33 +0100 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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:12:33 +0000 (GMT) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > "Jon Kyme" writes: > >> The former would be useful, but I'm doubtful that it would have much > >> of an impact on spam. The latter seems to me to rely on the sender > >> accurately tagging their messages according to content---possibly > >> would happen often enough that it would be worthwhile, but I'm not > >> sure that it would. > I'm not sure about this, there seems to me (at the most general) to > be only one class of things that need be asserted in a consent > expression: How this message is classified by some engine. Your > second class seems to me to be the sort of thing that's routinely > handled by content-filters (imperfectly, I grant you). > > So rather than saying: > 1. message has html => noconsent > 2. message mentions 'septic tank enhancement' => consent > 3. message is from grandma => consent > 4. message has valid consent token => consent > 5. message has blacklisted source IP => noconsent > etc ... > > You might say something more like > positive_test(name_of_engine_1, engineargs, message) => noconsent > positive_test(name_of_engine_2, engineargs, message) => consent > etc... > I guess someone could standardise this (using whatever language they > wanted), and there are some kinds of content filter (probably quite > simple things---the sort of thing that SIEVE can do, say) that we > could standardise on. That might be useful. Here's a little idea I had which was inspired by the above. I'd like to apologise for pre-empting the forthcoming consent framework document (was it Yakov who was working on that?) but I wanted to write all of this down before I forget. Feel free to tear it to shreds, although constructive suggestions for improvement would also be nice. :-) One approach that seems to work well for packet filtering is the iptables format of rules used by the Linux Netfilter module (http://www.netfilter.org). Perhaps a similar structure could be applied here to each e-mail message? You could have some kind of list of rules against which an e-mail message is compared in sequence until it matches a rule which specifies some policy decision. The Netfilter architecture allows each rule to have an associated external module to evaluate a match (e.g. the "mac" module to match packets based on the interface's MAC address is specified using "--match mac") so that it is fully extensible. For each rule there is also either a destination decision which specifies the fate of any packet matching that rule or else the name of another table of rules to be applied in the same way. Netfilter's ability to combine tables of tables using jumps and RETURNs allows one to construct very powerful combinations of rules. Message matching modules could be supplied by a range of different companies/programmers and the local user (if this is done in their MUA) or else the site admin (for a MTA) could utilise whichever modules they prefer at their level. Thus there might be a module to implement DNS blacklisting, one for some kind of C/R, a module for digital signature checking, another for content-based filtering and so on. Typical destination outcomes for an e-mail message might be: - silently discard the message (analogous to Netfilter's DROP) - bounce the message back with an error (like Netfilter's REJECT) - accept the message for delivery (like Netfilter's ACCEPT) - log part or all of the message for use in spam statistics and abuser tracing (like Netfilter's LOG, processing need not terminate after doing this) There might be other policy options too, this isn't intended to be an exhaustive list. Just as with Netfilter, the table will need some kind of default policy for messages that don't match any of the rules listed. Users could choose a fail-open (ACCEPT) or fail-closed (DROP) approach depending on their preferences. So using a pseudo-Netfilter syntax, my spam filtering INPUT table might look something like this: --source my_mum@aol.com -j ACCEPT --match content --content-type text/html --contains JavaScript -j DROP --match content --content-type text/html --contains InvalidHTMLTags -j DROP --source friend@somewhere.net --match attachment --type EXE,SCR,PIF,BAT,VBS -j REJECT --match attachment --file-type EXE,SCR,PIF,BAT,COM -j DROP --source trusted_colleague@work.com --match attachment --file-type JPEG,GIF -j ACCEPT --match content --content-type text/plain -j ACCEPT ... with a default policy of DROP for anything else. Notice that I'm willing to send a rejection message to one of my friends to bounce a message back, as it seems only polite to warn them. But for most senders I would silently discard suspected spam in order to avoid giving away the fact that my address is valid and thus incurring more. This is of course merely an example of how I might specify my personal preferences. I'm not suggesting that anyone else should set theirs this way, nor would I presume to tell other people what their default should be. I think it should be entirely at the recipient's discretion as to what they choose to receive. As somebody who knows more about e-mail than the average user, I'm prepared to accept the risk of some genuine messages being dropped provided I can trust the rules and filter modules I'm using. But this is just my own preference. Incidentally I know the above syntax is ugly and unfriendly to end-users. It's just an example, of course. However it can be made much easier by providing simple forms or graphical tools for the user in order to generate the rules on their behalf. If this were integrated into the MUA and tied in with their address book it would be extremely simple to use. To simplify usability further, each site (organisation or ISP) might provide a series of default policies, ranging from "high spam protection" to "no spam protection". Users could choose a level based on how strongly they feel about the issue. One suggestion I've not seen so far is rather like the Internet Explorer classification of web sites into "zones" depending on their level of trust. Users might classify senders into zones in the MUA address book, or else define some rules which can map an individual message into a "zone". Then a default policy is provided for every zone (which advanced users are free to tweak and define their own "custom" settings). Of course it's hard to classify e-mail messages into such zones because it's difficult to determine their true origin, so perhaps that idea would be unworkable. Anyway this is just an aside, not essential to the idea I'm describing. One other thing occurred to me based on the Netfilter comparison. Netfilter has several tables of rules based on what stage of routing the packet has arrived at. So there is a PREROUTING table for filtering packets before they've undergone any NAT translation/mangling, then either the INPUT or FORWARD table (depending on the routing decision) gets a chance to process them again after translation. Under an analogous e-mail filtering system, one could define tables of rules as follows: - ARRIVAL - INPUT - FORWARD ARRIVAL - for rules to process a message at the time at which the SMTP client connection is open, before the message has been accepted and enqueued. Thus at some suitable point before issuing a "250 Mail queued for delivery" we check the message against the rules and decide what to do with it. The ARRIVAL rule table will probably only apply to MTAs. A decision to ACCEPT would be like a "250 Mail queued" kind of message. A decision to DROP might map onto a "250 Mail queued" reply code but where the message is then dropped without placing it into the mail queue. A decision to REJECT might map onto a "5xy" permanent refusal reply code. ... and so on. Other types of policy might provide for a DELAY, perhaps a transient "4xy" refusal code. The delay policy might be used to limit the rate at which suspected spam spreads around the net, by forcing it to remain in the previous MTA's queue. Of course this would likely require some stateful tracking of messages so it might be difficult in practice. I'll leave that one for the experts to decide. There might be other kinds of policy too... I don't want to be too prescriptive at this stage. Rules in the ARRIVAL chain might also add headers to the messages. For example, the addition of "X-SpamScore" headers by spam filter modules might be done here. INPUT - for a message which has been accepted by the ARRIVAL table and which is destinated for local delivery. The ISP's MTA might have a special set of rules which it only applies to mailboxes on its own servers; these rules could be entered here. Also, a user's MUA could have its own additional INPUT table for messages which the ISP has not blocked. A user might thus implement their own spam policy on their local machine in the event that their ISP's generic policy isn't good enough for them. My personal example above would fit in here, filtering messages as they are downloaded from the server (via POP3, IMAP or whatever protocol they like. I think IMAP has some interesting possibilities in its own right but that's an aside). FORWARD - for a message which has been accepted by the ARRIVAL table of an MTA but which is to be passed on elsewhere to some server which is outside the control of the organisation running this MTA. Rules included here might be based on reciprocal spam-blocking agreements between the organisations which operate MTAs (ISPs, companies, whoever). There might be scope for some kind of social co-operation here by favouring messages to/from well-behaved ISPs. Protocols for sharing/co-ordinating policy might be used to keep FORWARD rules up-to-date. As a simple example of an extreme, a honeypot server which traps spam but never delivers might have a FORWARD table consisting of a single LOG rule to keep a copy of the message for later analysis and a default DROP policy so nothing gets externally delivered. Of course I've not said anything about how the modules would communicate with such a system, nor about how (if at all) individual modules might communicate with each other. Suggestions or comments about that aspect of the system would be helpful to flesh out some detail. > It's not a solution to spam, though, because some things really are > things that can't be checked automatically, so the content filtering > will be imperfect. And (if it were to be standardised) we can expect > it to become more and more imperfect. Maybe filtering will be good enough for long enough to allow time to deploy a better long-term solution. At any rate it can give everyone some breathing space. Sorry this turned into such a huge message, I probably got carried away. Things I like about this idea are: - it could express consent policy at different stages in the network, as discussed previously on the list. There is scope for some mechanism (protocol?) to synchronise or distribute policies across the internet. I will leave the possible design of this to other people. - it is independent of the SMTP transport protocol and therefore does not require changes to the SMTP standard (of course, policy decisions will need to be mapped onto SMTP response codes somehow). - it doesn't need to be deployed by the whole world at once in order to reap benefits, just as Gordon has pointed out about his personal consent system. I've tried to show how some of his suggested categories of things might be matched and blocked in my INPUT example above Things that worry me about it: - it assumes that there are suitable filtering techniques (modules) available to fit into this system - it needs the writers of MUAs to get on-board and for users to upgrade to newer, more capable MUAs. I suspect that the users who hate spam enough would be quite willing to download better software if their ISP held them by the hand. Those who don't upgrade will still be able to communicate with the rest of the world, subject to the spam detection policies of their recipients - it would work best if MTAs were also redesigned to employ the scheme. Of course the interoperability means it can be deployed on a small scale first and gradually increased Thanks for reading... Andrew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 18:45:34 2003 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 SAA28125 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:45:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XqLc-0002Ke-Er for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:45:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62Mj8SS008960 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:45:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XqLc-0002KR-Bz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:45:08 -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 SAA28080; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:45:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XqLX-00040v-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:45:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XqLW-00040s-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:45:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XqLV-0002IV-Jp; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:45:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XqKq-0002I4-2X for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:44:20 -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 SAA27973 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:44:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XqKl-0003z4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:44:15 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XqKk-0003z1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:44:14 -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 <20030702224530.KTDS28645.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:45:30 -0400 Message-ID: <3F036024.5050607@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: Elric Pedder CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 6. Solutions - Longterm - Replacing SMTP (Re: [Asrg] Bogus reasoning) References: <009901c340e6$802a08c0$04555ccc@kensington> In-Reply-To: <009901c340e6$802a08c0$04555ccc@kensington> 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, 02 Jul 2003 18:43:48 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Elric, that is exactly correct. I'd say it isn't necessary to see if the email was delivered just that it was sent (think about the USPS - even if the mail doesn't make it to the destination you still put a stamp on it). Monitoring of traffic by an ISP isn't all that difficult. The point isn't that anything costs anymore actually. You are merely trying to provide an economic disadvantage to sending out a million email messages! Chuck Wegrzyn Elric Pedder wrote: >>From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On >>Behalf Of C. Wegrzyn >>Sent: July 2, 2003 16:38 >>To: Barry Shein >>Cc: gep2@terabites.com; Yakov Shafranovich; asrg@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: 6. Solutions - Longterm - Replacing SMTP (Re: >>[Asrg] Bogus reasoning) >> >> > > > >>I believe the only real alternative is for every ISP (and >>this can be done I believe) to take on a per-email >>transaction fee. >> >> > >This proposal is made quite often, but I cannot see how it >would work. > >SMTP does not require the participation of any ISP other than >for the transmission of packets. In order to levy a charge, >the ISP would have to monitor your traffic, detect SMTP >usage, detect actual e-mail delivery, and bill you for it. > >What you create is an incentive for users to avoid the >detection of SMTP delivery -- a whole new problem. > >Without getting in to the "big brother" concepts or using >some sort of "centralised register of authorised e-mail >delivery agents" perhaps ISPs could bill a higher rate for >port 25-destined traffic than other traffic, and require that >every SMTP transaction contain only one RCPT address. > >Unfortunately port 25-destined traffic does not actually >cost any more than other-port-destined traffic. Therefore >in a competitive marketplace prices will be driven down to >cost+margin. > >The only weapon I can think of against market competition is >the government. So... would you accept a government tax on >e-mail? > >Ultimately, I just don't see how you could charge for e-mail. > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 18:52:29 2003 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 SAA28771 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:52:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XqSJ-0002Xn-Ue for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:52:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62Mq3jw009773 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:52:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XqSJ-0002XY-QM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:52:03 -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 SAA28728; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:51:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XqSE-0004EM-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:51:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XqSE-0004EJ-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:51:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XqSG-0002UY-Iu; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:52:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XqRT-0002UF-8Q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 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 SAA28659 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:51:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XqRO-0004Cg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:51:06 -0400 Received: from mxsmta02.inithost.com ([209.235.30.104] helo=mxsmta02.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XqRN-0004CX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:51:05 -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 <20030702224904.NAWJ7659.mxsmta02.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com> for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:49:04 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0361DF.2080607@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 CC: asrg@ietf.org References: <009901c340e6$802a08c0$04555ccc@kensington> <3F036024.5050607@garbagedump.com> In-Reply-To: <3F036024.5050607@garbagedump.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Certs and trusts... Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 02 Jul 2003 18:51:11 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't know if everyone saw this announcement. It is interesting given the recent conversation we have been having about trust http://www.ribbs.usps.gov/files/fedreg/usps2003/03-15211.PDF Chuck Wegrzyn _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 19:17:40 2003 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 TAA00595 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:17:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xqqc-00039G-T5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:17:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62NHAtv012096 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:17:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xqqc-000391-Pz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:17:10 -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 TAA00560; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:17:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xqqb-0004yu-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:17:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xqqa-0004yr-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:17:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XqqS-000379-Q8; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:17:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xqpo-00036i-0T for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:16:20 -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 TAA00485 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:16:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xqpm-0004x7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:16:18 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xqpl-0004vO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:16:17 -0400 Received: from video.comcast.net (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211](untrusted sender)) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with SMTP id <2003070223154601200shr62e> (Authid: s.schear); Wed, 2 Jul 2003 23:15:46 +0000 Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.0.20030702161551.045b6408@mail.comcast.net> X-Sender: s.schear@mail.comcast.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 To: ASRG , camram-spam@camram.org From: Steve Schear Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Asrg] Forbes: Pay up Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 02 Jul 2003 16:16:16 -0700 A promising way to curb spam: Charge the sender. Hoping to stop the evil epidemic of spam, Philip Raymond is putting a price on it. The 46-year-old software executive has a provisional patent on a service called Vanquish, which requires e-mail senders to post a cash bond of 5 cents into a bank account for every piece of e-mail they send. If a recipient judges the mail to be illegitimate, the sender loses the nickel, with four pennies going to the recipient's Internet service provider and one penny going to Vanquish as a processing fee. If the recipient okays the message, that sender is cleared from then on. But if the human or machine behind the spam won't post a bond, the message doesn't go through. With Internet service providers processing 6.9 billion spam messages a day, the price for senders could add up quickly. "We don't search for combinations of words and numbers," Raymond says. "We let recipients decide if they want it." In a trial of the service, 400 customers from eight small Internet service providers were offered Vanquish for free. Vanquish blocked spam cold, but users also experienced installation problems and delays in checking e-mail. Vanquish, based outside Boston, says it has fixed the glitches for its June launch, and aims to have a lofty 35 million users by the end of the year. It expects ISPs to pay 20 to 45 cents per customer per month. Raymond, who has started and sold two previous tech firms, figures that legitimate marketers, accustomed to paying for their messages in other media, will understand and appreciate Vanquish. As it is, private filtering systems and spam blacklists block plenty of marketers' e-mails. Yahoo and AOL have destroyed messages between Procter & Gamble and customers who agreed to be contacted, as well as acceptance letters to Harvard University applicants. Raymond has a good idea--other firms such as IronPort have also announced spam-bond products--but doesn't have much money. Vanquish is burning through $38,000 a month, even with three engineers working for one-third of their usual salary. Recently Raymond had to beg his advisory board for another $75,000. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/0707/110.html _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 19:40:40 2003 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 TAA02360 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:40:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrCp-0003jJ-7c for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:40:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62Ne7qd014336 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:40:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrCp-0003j9-2A for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:40:07 -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 TAA02345; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:40:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrCn-0005jN-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:40:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrCm-0005jK-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:40:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrCj-0003gg-9y; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:40:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrC6-0003fn-9u for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:39:22 -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 TAA02305 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:39:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrC4-0005iK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:39:20 -0400 Received: from uk.advascan.com ([193.109.194.91] ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrC3-0005iA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:39:20 -0400 X-Content-Scanned: Processed by Advascan System, phase 1beta Received: (from root@localhost) by uk.advascan.com (8.12.8/8.12.5) id h62NKoRK027608 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 00:20:50 +0100 (envelope-from roy.walker@advascan.com) Received: from Laptop1 (roywalker.plus.com [212.159.78.36]) by imta.advascan.com (8.12.8/8.12.5) with SMTP id h62NKgxB027562; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 00:20:42 +0100 (envelope-from roy.walker@advascan.com) Message-Id: <200307022320.h62NKgxB027562@imta.advascan.com> From: "Roy S. Walker" To: , ASRG , X-Mailer: PocoMail pe 2.61 (1048) - EVALUATION VERSION X-URL: http://www.pocomail.com/ In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20030702161551.045b6408@mail.comcast.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Forbes: Pay up Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_1057188050-27606-0" Content-Transfer-Encoding: (null) X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by imta.advascan.com id h62NKgxB027562 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 3 Jul 2003 00:46:44 +0100 This is a multi-part message in MIME format... ------------=_1057188050-27606-0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit "Charge the sender" was discussed yesterday at the famous 'spam summit' at the house of commons in the UK. View seems to be: this will further encourage the practice of spammers to gain control of legitimate email servers, with the intention of sending out spam from an 'authorised' sender (the recent piece on the BBC re British Airways as a source of spam refers..). This idea will NOT work in practice. Naive innocents would pick up the charge. Roy -- Roy S. Walker Chief Executive ADVA Technologies Ltd +44 (0)8450 539331 www.advascan.com On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:16:16 -0700, Steve Schear wrote: >A promising way to curb spam: Charge the sender. > >Hoping to stop the evil epidemic of spam, Philip Raymond is putting >a price >on it. The 46-year-old software executive has a provisional patent >on a >service called Vanquish, which requires e-mail senders to post a >cash bond >of 5 cents into a bank account for every piece of e-mail they send. >If a >recipient judges the mail to be illegitimate, the sender loses the >nickel, >with four pennies going to the recipient's Internet service provider >and >one penny going to Vanquish as a processing fee. If the recipient >okays the >message, that sender is cleared from then on. But if the human or >machine >behind the spam won't post a bond, the message doesn't go through. > >With Internet service providers processing 6.9 billion spam messages >a day, >the price for senders could add up quickly. "We don't search for >combinations of words and numbers," Raymond says. "We let recipients >decide >if they want it." > >In a trial of the service, 400 customers from eight small Internet >service >providers were offered Vanquish for free. Vanquish blocked spam >cold, but >users also experienced installation problems and delays in checking >e-mail. >Vanquish, based outside Boston, says it has fixed the glitches for >its June >launch, and aims to have a lofty 35 million users by the end of the >year. >It expects ISPs to pay 20 to 45 cents per customer per month. > >Raymond, who has started and sold two previous tech firms, figures >that >legitimate marketers, accustomed to paying for their messages in >other >media, will understand and appreciate Vanquish. As it is, private >filtering >systems and spam blacklists block plenty of marketers' e-mails. >Yahoo and >AOL have destroyed messages between Procter & Gamble and customers >who >agreed to be contacted, as well as acceptance letters to Harvard >University >applicants. > >Raymond has a good idea--other firms such as IronPort have also >announced >spam-bond products--but doesn't have much money. Vanquish is burning >through $38,000 a month, even with three engineers working for one- >third of >their usual salary. Recently Raymond had to beg his advisory board >for >another $75,000. > >http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/0707/110.html > > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > >This email has been scanned by the ADVASCAN(tm) antivirus / antispam >service >For more information please visit www.advascan.com. > > This email has been scanned by the ADVASCAN(tm) antivirus / antispam service For more information please visit www.advascan.com. This email has been scanned by the ADVASCAN(tm) antivirus / antispam service For more information please visit www.advascan.com. ------------=_1057188050-27606-0-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 19:50:38 2003 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 TAA02544 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:50:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrMW-0003vc-7i for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:50:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62No83T015096 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:50:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrMW-0003vP-4o for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:50:08 -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 TAA02535; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:50:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrMU-0005sC-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:50:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrMT-0005s9-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:50:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrMP-0003sJ-Pb; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:50:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrLv-0003rk-7X for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:49:31 -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 TAA02528 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:49:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrLt-0005rs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:49:29 -0400 Received: from adsl-67-119-72-241.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net ([67.119.72.241] helo=BLACKCOMB.corp.mailfrontier.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrLs-0005ro-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:49:28 -0400 Received: from royalgorge ([10.1.2.16]) by BLACKCOMB.corp.mailfrontier.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:49:27 -0700 Message-ID: <058e01c340f4$92f62a70$1002010a@corp.mailfrontier.com> From: "David Koblas" To: , References: Subject: Re: [Asrg] Remote mailing 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 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jul 2003 23:49:27.0715 (UTC) FILETIME=[92E47730:01C340F4] 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, 2 Jul 2003 16:49:27 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >Spam at one level is a security problem, it's the allowance of non-validated > >sender to send messages impersonating other users. > > Eliminating that (even if we could) still doesn't solve the spam problem. > > A person can sent a Hotmail message saying IN THE BODY that they're so-and-so... > how are you going to prevent false statements being made in ANY E-mail? I don't > think you can. That's part of the basis of putting verifiable information in a message, as long as people are allowed to spoof any identity in any system you cannot every solve this problem. You need to migrate to a system in which basic identity is verifiable. I don't care if you say your bob@extra.com and you're reply-to address is bob@example.com , that's fine... You no longer are forging your sending identity. > >Your example is "should a Cisco employee be allow to send a message from > >anywhere without authenticating against Cisco" implies that Cisco doesn't > >care who sends messages claiming to be from a Cisco. > > So someone sends a message saying (in the body!) that they're from Cisco. > Caveat lector! Cisco CANNOT prevent that. I don't think any system can prevent false statements (even newspapers make them), what would be nice to see is a system which prevents false identities. > >Easy example, is today > >sitting at my desk I can originate a message from "John Chambers" letting > >you know the quarterly earning are great! That's a security problem, the > >message didn't originate from Cisco nor is this user authenticated... > > >If you're sitting on an airplane, customer site, etc., you should > >authenticate in to your corporate network or send email via another channel. > > Easier said than done. You may simply NOT HAVE CONTROL over how the E-mail is > being sent, ONLY able to enter your return address. Very true, but as a "normal" user all I care about is that the message that I send is delivered and that the person/machine that I sent it to can reply. There are tricks for mailinglist and other machine based system to better handle auto-responses, but they should be secondary to human communications. > >Hotmail, Yahoo, AOL, etc. all have authentication before you can send email, > >they can easily stamp, sign or otherwise endorse the message before it's > >delivered on the network. > > You're presuming that you're necessarily using Web-based E-mail, which is NOT > always the case. (E.g. Internet cafes on cruise ships, where you're 'favored' > to send the mail using their native mail system rather than using the Web > browser... due to the satellite connection at $7+/minute!) No I'm presuming that there is some level of authentication between me and my email sending point. I should have no expectation that on a cuise ship that I can send mail from a MTA located in the boiler room and retain my work identity. After all it's a boiler room sending the message... > >There is no reason that a MTA or MUA should in the long term allow > >non-verifiable messages to arrive. > > That depends ENTIRELY on the situation. It's dangerous to make categoric > statements like that. Start with a bold point and find a strong compromise, start with a weak point and have a weaker compromise. > >It's the responsibly of the sending MTA > >to stamp/sign a message on outgoing delivery. It's impossible to belive > >that we can remove spam from the network, but what I want to see is good > >senders not having to worry about their ability to send email and have it be > >received (see recent FTC problems). > > "Good senders" could STILL decide to send spam. The recipient STILL needs the > right to block stuff (even from people that they know and trust) that's outside > the boundaries of what they're used to accepting (and willing to accept) from > individual senders. And there PROBABLY needs to be a mechanism for them to AT > LEAST BE AWARE that they've received something from someone "new", and to decide > if they want to take it or not. > > This is NOT a lot different than long-established policy of when you call the > President of XYZ Corporation, and the secretary takes the call and finds out: > > 1) who you are > 2) what company you're with > 3) what the call is regarding > > And then, based on that (and their knowing the Boss) they'll either deflect your > call to another department, or present the Boss with the information to see if > he wants to take the call. And like in my proposal, he'll clarify his policy: > > 1) no, I'm not interested in calls like these; send 'em to Customer Service > 2) Yes, put him through right away > 3) I'll take it this time, but not if he calls back > 4) tell him to get lost > or whatever. > > Screening your calls with an answering machine is much the same... you'll let > the answering machine take it, and listen while the caller (rapidly) makes their > case for calling them back. If you want, you can pick up the phone and take the > call; or you can maybe call them back at your leisure. I fully agree with the above... The unfortunate truth is that spam is partly in the eye of the reader, there are messages I get on a daily basis that other people might view a spam. One of the difficulties in content filtering games is that it's hard to know what's good if all you can work on is the content. Systems which provide identity verification provide addtional information by which decissions can be made. --koblas _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 19:51:31 2003 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 TAA02576 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:51:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrNP-00041M-1t for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:51:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62Np3dW015451 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:51:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrNO-000418-VJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:51:02 -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 TAA02563; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:51:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrNN-0005sf-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:51:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrNM-0005sc-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:51:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrNN-0003zF-L1; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:51:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrNC-0003z4-FM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:50:50 -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 TAA02560 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:50:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrNA-0005sV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:50:48 -0400 Received: from 000-257-002.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.243.209] helo=68.27.243.209) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrN6-0005sQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:50:47 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702195022.00bba568@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "C. Wegrzyn" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 6. Solutions - Digital Certificate Based (was Re: [Asrg] Certs and trusts...) 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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:50:23 -0400 At 06:51 PM 7/2/2003 -0400, C. Wegrzyn wrote: >I don't know if everyone saw this announcement. It is interesting given >the recent conversation we have been having about trust > >http://www.ribbs.usps.gov/files/fedreg/usps2003/03-15211.PDF The USPS program simple provides a way for CAs to do in-person checking. This is similar to what existing CAs offer by requiring some applications to undergo an in-person process (for business mainly), See this quote: ---snip---- Numerous organizations have approached the U.S. Postal Service to conduct In-Person Proofing (IPP) of customers nationwide for physically authenticating an individual's identification at a post office before the organization issues a digital signature certificate to the individual. The following is a brief description of how IPP would work. An organization can establish a relationship with a qualified U.S. Certificate Authority to integrate digital signing with improved identity verification into an online application. Any individual desiring to use digital certificates that include USPS IPP will complete an application online. The online system will verify the individual's identity via commercial data base checking. The system will then produce a standard Postal Service form to be printed out at the ''applicant's'' personal computer. The individual requesting the service will present this form to a participating post office where the ''In Person Proofing'' process is conducted. After successful completion of the IPP event, the CA will notify the applicant to download their digital certificate. -----snip----- HOWEVER, the following requirements worry me (EMPHASIS added): ----snip---- 1. Use of a PATRIOT ACT COMPLIANT DATABASE VETTING PROCESS to gain initial assurance of an applicant's identity before sending the applicant to the Postal Office for IPP. B. Maintaining a secure repository of IDVF forms, C. Providing access to IDVF forms and customer account information as necessary for investigative purposes by USPS Inspection Service and the USPS Office of Inspector General, D. Incorporating a new common object identifier (USPS registered OID) for IPP based digital certificates. ----snip---- Centralized data storage of private information, easy access for government agencies without a court order, Patriot ACT, new OID, etc. These things are not needed in order to create such program, so why is the USPS insisting on this? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 19:53:32 2003 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 TAA02628 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:53:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrPM-0004D6-00 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:53:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62Nr3WL016179 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:53:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrPL-0004Cj-T7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:53:03 -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 TAA02611; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:53:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrPJ-0005uE-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:53:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrPJ-0005u8-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:53:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrPJ-00049G-Bj; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:53:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrP4-00048S-3e for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:52:46 -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 TAA02605 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:52:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrP2-0005tx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:52:44 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrP1-0005tk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:52:43 -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 <20030702235432.LJVD28645.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:54:32 -0400 Message-ID: <3F037052.6000704@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: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 6. Solutions - Digital Certificate Based (was Re: [Asrg] Certs and trusts...) References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702195022.00bba568@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702195022.00bba568@solidmatrix.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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:52:50 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have yet to see Verisign or Thwate do any in-person stuff. Mostly it is just a simple D&B check with a phone call. This would be more reliable. Chuck Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > At 06:51 PM 7/2/2003 -0400, C. Wegrzyn wrote: > >> I don't know if everyone saw this announcement. It is interesting >> given the recent conversation we have been having about trust >> >> http://www.ribbs.usps.gov/files/fedreg/usps2003/03-15211.PDF > > > The USPS program simple provides a way for CAs to do in-person > checking. This is similar to what existing CAs offer by requiring some > applications to undergo an in-person process (for business mainly), > See this quote: > > ---snip---- > Numerous organizations have approached the U.S. Postal Service to > conduct In-Person Proofing (IPP) of customers nationwide for > physically authenticating an individual's identification at a post > office before the organization issues a digital signature certificate > to the individual. > > The following is a brief description of how IPP would work. An > organization can establish a relationship with a qualified U.S. > Certificate Authority to integrate digital signing with improved > identity verification into an online application. Any individual > desiring to use digital certificates that include USPS IPP will > complete an application online. The online system will verify the > individual's identity via commercial data base checking. The system > will then produce a standard Postal Service form to be printed out at > the ''applicant's'' personal computer. The individual requesting the > service will present this form to a participating post office where > the ''In Person Proofing'' process is conducted. After successful > completion of the IPP event, the CA will notify the applicant to > download their digital certificate. > -----snip----- > > HOWEVER, the following requirements worry me (EMPHASIS added): > > ----snip---- > 1. Use of a PATRIOT ACT COMPLIANT DATABASE VETTING PROCESS to gain > initial assurance of an applicant's identity before sending the > applicant to the Postal Office for IPP. > > B. Maintaining a secure repository of IDVF forms, > > C. Providing access to IDVF forms and customer account information as > necessary for investigative purposes by USPS Inspection Service and > the USPS Office of Inspector General, > > D. Incorporating a new common object identifier (USPS registered OID) > for IPP based digital certificates. > ----snip---- > > Centralized data storage of private information, easy access for > government agencies without a court order, Patriot ACT, new OID, etc. > These things are not needed in order to create such program, so why is > the USPS insisting on this? > > 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 Wed Jul 2 19:53:32 2003 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 TAA02642 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:53:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrPL-0004Ct-Uf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:53:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62Nr3Bd016163 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:53:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrPL-0004Cc-Qs for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:53:03 -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 TAA02610; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:53:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrPJ-0005uB-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:53:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrPJ-0005u7-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:53:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrPI-00048l-UP; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:53:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrOo-000483-Ca for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:52:30 -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 TAA02592 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:52:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrOm-0005tQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:52:28 -0400 Received: from adsl-67-119-72-241.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net ([67.119.72.241] helo=BLACKCOMB.corp.mailfrontier.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrOl-0005tM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:52:28 -0400 Received: from royalgorge ([10.1.2.16]) by BLACKCOMB.corp.mailfrontier.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:52:27 -0700 Message-ID: <058f01c340f4$fe2a9fb0$1002010a@corp.mailfrontier.com> From: "David Koblas" To: "Barry Shein" Cc: , References: <03d701c340b6$9e2a8c80$1002010a@corp.mailfrontier.com> <16131.16906.286142.836930@world.std.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Remote mailing 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 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jul 2003 23:52:27.0568 (UTC) FILETIME=[FE17DB00:01C340F4] 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, 2 Jul 2003 16:52:27 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I fully agree that you cannot stop people from using disposable domains or email addresses. But, if you can provide a migration path from an untrusted network to a trusted network you can segregate the messages. You can easily build system which leverage history on senders (and their domains) to start making better decisions, but most systems are force into the weak world of content analysis to make their decissions. In addtion you can thwart many problems with web-proxy, sock-proxy style spam attacks because they cannot generate validation information that matches the transaction. --koblas > > From: "David Koblas" > >Spam at one level is a security problem, it's the allowance of non-validated > >sender to send messages impersonating other users. > > Certainly a lot of spam does this, but it's not clear this is critical > to spam. > > A fair number of spammers send from domains they probably own, > cheapmortgages.com and that kind of thing, so who's to say that's an > impersonation of any sort? > > Others send from domains with fraudulent intent, but which likely > would slip by most proposed systems, such as xyz@yah00.com (those are > two zeros) or joe@aol-mailserver.com (not real examples but similar to > real examples, a common real example I see is whatever@hotmial.com). > > -- > -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 Jul 2 19:57:37 2003 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 TAA02743 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:57:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrTJ-0004Pq-IS for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:57:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h62Nv90c016974 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:57:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrTJ-0004Ph-FS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:57:09 -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 TAA02722; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:57:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrTH-0005xj-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:57:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrTH-0005xg-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:57:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrTB-0004No-F3; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:57:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrSX-0004NV-BN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:56:21 -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 TAA02705 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:56:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrSV-0005wm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:56:19 -0400 Received: from 000-257-002.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.243.209] helo=68.27.243.209) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrSR-0005wg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:56:16 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702195509.00b33008@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "C. Wegrzyn" From: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <3F037052.6000704@garbagedump.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702195022.00bba568@solidmatrix.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030702195022.00bba568@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 Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Solutions - Digital Certificate Based (was Re: [Asrg] Certs and trusts...) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 02 Jul 2003 19:55:51 -0400 It was some small CA that used to do it. My concern is not with that, but rather with USPS mandating free access without court order to this data. And privacy issues. At 07:52 PM 7/2/2003 -0400, C. Wegrzyn wrote: >I have yet to see Verisign or Thwate do any in-person stuff. Mostly it is >just a simple D&B check with a phone call. This would be more reliable. > >Chuck > >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >>At 06:51 PM 7/2/2003 -0400, C. Wegrzyn wrote: >> >>>I don't know if everyone saw this announcement. It is interesting given >>>the recent conversation we have been having about trust >>> >>>http://www.ribbs.usps.gov/files/fedreg/usps2003/03-15211.PDF >> >> >>The USPS program simple provides a way for CAs to do in-person checking. >>This is similar to what existing CAs offer by requiring some applications >>to undergo an in-person process (for business mainly), See this quote: >> >>---snip---- >>Numerous organizations have approached the U.S. Postal Service to conduct >>In-Person Proofing (IPP) of customers nationwide for physically >>authenticating an individual's identification at a post office before the >>organization issues a digital signature certificate to the individual. >> >>The following is a brief description of how IPP would work. An >>organization can establish a relationship with a qualified U.S. >>Certificate Authority to integrate digital signing with improved identity >>verification into an online application. Any individual desiring to use >>digital certificates that include USPS IPP will complete an application >>online. The online system will verify the individual's identity via >>commercial data base checking. The system will then produce a standard >>Postal Service form to be printed out at the ''applicant's'' personal >>computer. The individual requesting the service will present this form to >>a participating post office where the ''In Person Proofing'' process is >>conducted. After successful completion of the IPP event, the CA will >>notify the applicant to download their digital certificate. >>-----snip----- >> >>HOWEVER, the following requirements worry me (EMPHASIS added): >> >>----snip---- >>1. Use of a PATRIOT ACT COMPLIANT DATABASE VETTING PROCESS to gain >>initial assurance of an applicant's identity before sending the applicant >>to the Postal Office for IPP. >> >>B. Maintaining a secure repository of IDVF forms, >> >>C. Providing access to IDVF forms and customer account information as >>necessary for investigative purposes by USPS Inspection Service and the >>USPS Office of Inspector General, >> >>D. Incorporating a new common object identifier (USPS registered OID) for >>IPP based digital certificates. >>----snip---- >> >>Centralized data storage of private information, easy access for >>government agencies without a court order, Patriot ACT, new OID, etc. >>These things are not needed in order to create such program, so why is >>the USPS insisting on this? >> >>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 Wed Jul 2 20:00:32 2003 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 UAA02826 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:00:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrW8-0004a4-9f for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:00:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h630044R017602 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:00:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrW8-0004Zp-5r for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:00:04 -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 UAA02814; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:00:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrW6-00062A-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:00:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrW5-000625-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:00:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrW6-0004Wd-3T; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:00:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrVl-0004VU-0A for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:59:41 -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 TAA02788 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:59:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrVj-00061V-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:59:39 -0400 Received: from 000-257-002.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.243.209] helo=68.27.243.209) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrVd-00061J-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:59:34 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702195759.00b52870@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Roy S. Walker" , , ASRG , From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 6. Solutions - E-postage (was Re: [Asrg] Forbes: Pay up) In-Reply-To: <200307022320.h62NKgxB027562@imta.advascan.com> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20030702161551.045b6408@mail.comcast.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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:59:15 -0400 This topic has been discussed many times before, take a look at www.irtf.org/asrg/ and the links to the archive and the list maintained by William Leibzon. At 12:46 AM 7/3/2003 +0100, Roy S. Walker wrote: >Content-Transfer-Encoding: (null) > >"Charge the sender" was discussed yesterday at the famous 'spam summit' at >the house of commons in >the UK. View seems to be: this will further encourage the practice of >spammers to gain control of >legitimate email servers, with the intention of sending out spam from an >'authorised' sender (the >recent piece on the BBC re British Airways as a source of spam refers..). >This idea will NOT work >in practice. Naive innocents would pick up the charge. > >Roy > >-- >Roy S. Walker >Chief Executive >ADVA Technologies Ltd >+44 (0)8450 539331 >www.advascan.com > > >On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:16:16 -0700, Steve Schear wrote: > >A promising way to curb spam: Charge the sender. > > > >Hoping to stop the evil epidemic of spam, Philip Raymond is putting > >a price > >on it. The 46-year-old software executive has a provisional patent > >on a > >service called Vanquish, which requires e-mail senders to post a > >cash bond > >of 5 cents into a bank account for every piece of e-mail they send. > >If a > >recipient judges the mail to be illegitimate, the sender loses the > >nickel, > >with four pennies going to the recipient's Internet service provider > >and > >one penny going to Vanquish as a processing fee. If the recipient > >okays the > >message, that sender is cleared from then on. But if the human or > >machine > >behind the spam won't post a bond, the message doesn't go through. > > > >With Internet service providers processing 6.9 billion spam messages > >a day, > >the price for senders could add up quickly. "We don't search for > >combinations of words and numbers," Raymond says. "We let recipients > >decide > >if they want it." > > > >In a trial of the service, 400 customers from eight small Internet > >service > >providers were offered Vanquish for free. Vanquish blocked spam > >cold, but > >users also experienced installation problems and delays in checking > >e-mail. > >Vanquish, based outside Boston, says it has fixed the glitches for > >its June > >launch, and aims to have a lofty 35 million users by the end of the > >year. > >It expects ISPs to pay 20 to 45 cents per customer per month. > > > >Raymond, who has started and sold two previous tech firms, figures > >that > >legitimate marketers, accustomed to paying for their messages in > >other > >media, will understand and appreciate Vanquish. As it is, private > >filtering > >systems and spam blacklists block plenty of marketers' e-mails. > >Yahoo and > >AOL have destroyed messages between Procter & Gamble and customers > >who > >agreed to be contacted, as well as acceptance letters to Harvard > >University > >applicants. > > > >Raymond has a good idea--other firms such as IronPort have also > >announced > >spam-bond products--but doesn't have much money. Vanquish is burning > >through $38,000 a month, even with three engineers working for one- > >third of > >their usual salary. Recently Raymond had to beg his advisory board > >for > >another $75,000. > > > >http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/0707/110.html > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Asrg mailing list > >Asrg@ietf.org > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > >This email has been scanned by the ADVASCAN(tm) antivirus / antispam > >service > >For more information please visit www.advascan.com. > > > > > > > > > > >This email has been scanned by the ADVASCAN(tm) antivirus / antispam service >For more information please visit www.advascan.com. > > > > >This email has been scanned by the ADVASCAN(tm) antivirus / antispam service >For more information please visit www.advascan.com. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 20:02:33 2003 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 UAA02900 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:02:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrY4-0004jW-R8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:02:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63024j3018189 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:02:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrY4-0004j4-N8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:02:04 -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 UAA02888; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:02:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrY2-00063v-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:02:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrY1-00063r-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:02:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrY1-0004fk-Rd; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:02:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrXz-0004f4-DP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:01:59 -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 UAA02883 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:01:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrXx-00063l-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:01:57 -0400 Received: from mxsmta02.inithost.com ([209.235.30.104] helo=mxsmta02.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrXw-00063i-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:01:56 -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 <20030702235958.NULD7659.mxsmta02.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:59:58 -0400 Message-ID: <3F037279.2070508@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: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Solutions - Digital Certificate Based (was Re: [Asrg] Certs and trusts...) References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702195022.00bba568@solidmatrix.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030702195022.00bba568@solidmatrix.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030702195509.00b33008@std5.imagineis.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702195509.00b33008@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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:02:01 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Good point...I didn't catch that. Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > It was some small CA that used to do it. My concern is not with that, > but rather with USPS mandating free access without court order to this > data. And privacy issues. > > At 07:52 PM 7/2/2003 -0400, C. Wegrzyn wrote: > >> I have yet to see Verisign or Thwate do any in-person stuff. Mostly >> it is just a simple D&B check with a phone call. This would be more >> reliable. >> >> Chuck >> >> Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >> >>> At 06:51 PM 7/2/2003 -0400, C. Wegrzyn wrote: >>> >>>> I don't know if everyone saw this announcement. It is interesting >>>> given the recent conversation we have been having about trust >>>> >>>> http://www.ribbs.usps.gov/files/fedreg/usps2003/03-15211.PDF >>> >>> >>> >>> The USPS program simple provides a way for CAs to do in-person >>> checking. This is similar to what existing CAs offer by requiring >>> some applications to undergo an in-person process (for business >>> mainly), See this quote: >>> >>> ---snip---- >>> Numerous organizations have approached the U.S. Postal Service to >>> conduct In-Person Proofing (IPP) of customers nationwide for >>> physically authenticating an individual's identification at a post >>> office before the organization issues a digital signature >>> certificate to the individual. >>> >>> The following is a brief description of how IPP would work. An >>> organization can establish a relationship with a qualified U.S. >>> Certificate Authority to integrate digital signing with improved >>> identity verification into an online application. Any individual >>> desiring to use digital certificates that include USPS IPP will >>> complete an application online. The online system will verify the >>> individual's identity via commercial data base checking. The system >>> will then produce a standard Postal Service form to be printed out >>> at the ''applicant's'' personal computer. The individual requesting >>> the service will present this form to a participating post office >>> where the ''In Person Proofing'' process is conducted. After >>> successful completion of the IPP event, the CA will notify the >>> applicant to download their digital certificate. >>> -----snip----- >>> >>> HOWEVER, the following requirements worry me (EMPHASIS added): >>> >>> ----snip---- >>> 1. Use of a PATRIOT ACT COMPLIANT DATABASE VETTING PROCESS to gain >>> initial assurance of an applicant's identity before sending the >>> applicant to the Postal Office for IPP. >>> >>> B. Maintaining a secure repository of IDVF forms, >>> >>> C. Providing access to IDVF forms and customer account information >>> as necessary for investigative purposes by USPS Inspection Service >>> and the USPS Office of Inspector General, >>> >>> D. Incorporating a new common object identifier (USPS registered >>> OID) for IPP based digital certificates. >>> ----snip---- >>> >>> Centralized data storage of private information, easy access for >>> government agencies without a court order, Patriot ACT, new OID, >>> etc. These things are not needed in order to create such program, so >>> why is the USPS insisting on this? >>> >>> 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 Wed Jul 2 20:10:40 2003 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 UAA03952 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:10:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xrfu-0005GB-0e for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:10:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h630A9OY020213 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:10:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xrft-0005Fw-TH for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:10:09 -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 UAA03926; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:10:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xrfr-0006Rg-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:10:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xrfr-0006Rd-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:10:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xrfl-0005E0-LP; Wed, 02 Jul 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 19Xrf3-0005DV-Li for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:09:19 -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 UAA03796 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:09:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xrf1-0006Oh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:09:15 -0400 Received: from 000-257-002.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.243.209] helo=68.27.243.209 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xrey-0006OP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:09:14 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702200408.00bbd218@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Paul Judge From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 3. Requirements - Accessibility (was Re: [Asrg] News Article - Turing Tests and the Blind) Cc: asrg@ietf.org, jbrewer@w3.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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:08:53 -0400 I was concerned about accessibility issues with Turing tests for C/R systems (this is related to the CRI protocol me and Eric Dean are working on). I contacted the relevant person at W3C and posting the response to the group. Yakov >Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:12:29 -0400 >To: Yakov Shafranovich >Subject: Re: Fwd: [Asrg] News Article - Turing Tests and the Blind > >Yakov, > >To clarify what Paul said in the CNET article: the W3C/WAI Protocols and >Formats Working Group is _thinking_ about the issue; and the Web Content >Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (WCAG WG) has the issue on their >issue tracking list. Various informal conversations have taken place >outside of those settings as well. I would be happy to fill you in more >and to connect you with the relevant people. It is part of a general >problem with the intersection of information assurance and >accessible/universal design. > >I told Paul that if the WCAG WG comes up with effective _techniques_ to >address this problem, they would likely be included in an updated Working >Draft of the Techniques document that accompanies a future Working Draft >of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. W3C does not anticipate >developing a "standard for Turing tests" -- the techniques layer of our >WAI Guidelines are non-normative. But I do expect that we can contribute >ideas to the development of effective solutions for this problem. ---snip--- >At 12:12 PM 7/2/2003 -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >>Hi, >> >>I am a member of the Anti Spam Research Group (ASRG) of the IRTF >>(www.irtf.org/asrg/). I recently saw you being quoted in the following >>news article regarding developing web accessibility standards for Turing >>tests. If it possible, can you point me to the specific working groups >>and standards that are working on this issue. Also, if it possible can >>you summarize for the our group what exactly is W3C planning on doing >>regarding Turing tests. >> >>Yakov >> >>>To: asrg@ietf.org >>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>Subject: [Asrg] News Article - Turing Tests and the Blind >>>Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org >>>List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF >>>List-Archive: >>>Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:03:19 -0400 >>> >>> >>>This News.com article (http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-1022814.html) >>>discussed a problem with using visual Turing tests - the blind cannot use it. >>> >>>---snip--- >>>Efforts to create tests aimed at distinguishing humans from machines go >>>back decades, with the most famous formulation of the problem posed in >>>1950 by the English mathematician and World War II "Enigma" code breaker >>>Alan Turing. Turing's controversial hypothesis was that a machine could >>>be defined as "intelligent" if a questioner could be fooled into >>>believing it was a person. >>> >>>Visual tests in a sense turn that theory on its head, assuming that a >>>machine is defined by its inability to perform a task that is easy for >>>most humans to accomplish. >>> >>>The increasingly popular visual test, and the difficulty of using >>>current work-arounds, has raised enough hackles among advocates for the >>>disabled that working groups within the World Wide Web Consortium's >>>(W3C) Web Accessibility Initiative have begun discussions on how to >>>standardize an alternative. >>> >>>Two WAI working groups are hashing out proposals to guide Web sites in >>>designing blind-friendly bot repellants, and the WAI hopes to address >>>the issue in the next working draft of its Web Accessibility Guidelines, >>>Version 2.0, which is due by year's end. So far, published working >>>drafts of the guidelines are silent on the issue. >>>----snip---- >>> >>>As Vernon pointed out previously we do not know for sure if these tests >>>cannot be passed by a machine. Also, nothing can stop spammers from >>>hiring real people to do the task. The financial difference would be >>>negligible. This raises the issue of whether the tests are needed in the >>>first place. C/R systems also fall under this issue. >>> >>>It would be worthwhile to contact the W3C in order to keep abreast of >>>any standards they make in the area. >>> >>>Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 20:34:36 2003 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 UAA06356 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:34:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xs37-00069J-03 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:34:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h630Y8K7023633 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:34:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xs36-000696-TW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:34:08 -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 UAA06317; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:34:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xs34-0007NU-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:34:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xs33-0007NP-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:34:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xs2z-00067C-Ed; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:34:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xs2P-00066O-8w for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:33:25 -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 UAA06253 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:33:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xs2M-0007Lf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:33:22 -0400 Received: from nber13.nber.org ([207.113.108.238]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xs2L-0007LV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:33:21 -0400 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 h630WqSw097854 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:32:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h630WqsZ097853 for asrg@ietf.org.KAV; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:32:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nber5.nber.org (nber5.nber.org [207.113.108.99]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h630WoSx097845; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:32:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Feenberg To: Elric Pedder cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: 6. Solutions - Longterm - Replacing SMTP (Re: [Asrg] Bogus reasoning) In-Reply-To: <009901c340e6$802a08c0$04555ccc@kensington> 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, 2 Jul 2003 20:31:00 -0400 (EDT) On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Elric Pedder wrote: > > This proposal is made quite often, but I cannot see how it > would work. > > SMTP does not require the participation of any ISP other than > for the transmission of packets. In order to levy a charge, > the ISP would have to monitor your traffic, detect SMTP > usage, detect actual e-mail delivery, and bill you for it. > > > Unfortunately port 25-destined traffic does not actually > cost any more than other-port-destined traffic. Therefore > in a competitive marketplace prices will be driven down to > cost+margin. > I think this reasoning is absolutely correct for leased line customers, but if an ISP had a mail server that could count messages by submitter (I know of none that do so) it could easily advertise "100 messages free per day". The advantage to the ISP would be that spammers wouldn't bother to register fake accounts to send millions of messages, and the limitation of 100 messages per day wouldn't discourage legitimate dial-up customers the way a charge for each message would. In fact, a marketing person might say that "100" sounds bigger than "unlimited" to the average person. Surely that is why AOL promises "1000 free hours" rather than "unlimited use for a month". I really think the inability of sendmail and its ilk to count messages by actual sender (not envelope or header addresses) is a major source of the spam problem. SMTP AUTH is a mechanism which would allow such counting, perhaps someday it will be used. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 20:43:32 2003 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 UAA06866 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:43:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XsBk-0006bK-QZ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:43:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h630h4L7025374 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:43:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XsBk-0006bB-J5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:43:04 -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 UAA06851; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:43:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XsBi-0007Yk-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:43:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XsBh-0007Yh-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:43:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XsBh-0006YA-Jm; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:43:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XsBA-0006Xo-Ve for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:42:29 -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 UAA06832 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:42:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XsB8-0007YF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:42:26 -0400 Received: from law9-oe28.law9.hotmail.com ([64.4.8.85] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XsB7-0007XW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:42:26 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:41:23 -0700 Received: from 12.145.89.10 by law9-oe28.law9.hotmail.com with DAV; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 00:41:23 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [12.145.89.10] X-Originating-Email: [khirsch314159@hotmail.com] From: "Ken Hirsch" To: References: Subject: Re: [Asrg] The Solution To Spam - The First Response MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="macintosh" 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 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2003 00:41:23.0629 (UTC) FILETIME=[D41F35D0:01C340FB] 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, 2 Jul 2003 20:40:38 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Kee Hinckley" > This list has had this type of discussion before. Those are > approximately the requirements necessary for an SSL certificate. > SSL certificates currently last one year at about $100/cert. The > margins are such that virtually no background checks are done. And > of course there is no revocation, arbitration or verification done > for how you use it afterwards. I would guess that, at a minimum, > the level of support you are requesting would result in a fee on the > order of $1000/year in order to support the necessary infrastructure > and support needs. It might be somewhat lower because the volume of > sales would be many orders of magnitude higher than SSL certs, but I > can't see it being any cheaper. You say that like it's a bad thing. If it would reduce the number of SMTP servers by one or two orders of magnitude, that's great! Perhaps I should remind you that your own (reasonably priced) service is $36/year per user. A $1000 would cover 28 people. I should hope the average SMTP server services more people than that! But your assertion does not really check out. The extra cost for identify verification should be on the order of $100 for the first year and maybe $30 extra per renewal. For example, the cost of a passport application is $55 for the State Department and $30 to the acceptance facility (usually the post office). The USPS just announced the availability of a service for CAs to check identities in person. I'm sure the cost will be comparable to the $30 that they get for passport applications. Or, my bank will do it for free for their customers, and there is a CA (digitrust.com) that is associated with the American Banking Association. Their charge is $175 for a business identification or SSL certificate. And why should it cost more? For the first time, somebody needs to process the application, run a credit check, check ID against databases. In time (<1 hour) and fees (e.g. $25 for a credit report), that should be less than a $100. For a renewal, a good practice would be a credit check (to see if there's anything really fishy) and mailing the renewal code to the address to see if it's still good. An extra $30? So, how much do CAs charge for code-signing certificates, which should be comparable? The most expensive is Verisign, which is $400 the first year and $300 for renewals. Others are half that. Right now the PKI is weak on certificate revocation, but that's not strictly necessary. Third parties can label a given identity as a spammer, just as they do for IP addresses. In fact the PKI as it stands is adequate for identify verification, at least in the United States, but as I indicated in earlier messages, that's not quite enough to prevent spam. You also need (at least) the property that there are not too many certificates per person (although the cost does put some limit on it.) PKI provides certificate => identity but not yet identity => few certificates Note that IP addresses and domain names provide neither property. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 20:49:45 2003 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 UAA02899 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:02:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrY4-0004jP-Q6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:02:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63024R3018175 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:02:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrY4-0004j3-LW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:02:04 -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 UAA02887; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:02:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrY2-00063x-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:02:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrY1-00063q-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:02:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrY1-0004fF-DE; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:02:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XrXf-0004er-GA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:01:39 -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 UAA02870 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:01:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrXd-00063J-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:01:37 -0400 Received: from 000-257-002.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.243.209] helo=68.27.243.209) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XrXb-00063D-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:01:36 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702195930.00bbd0d8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Elric Pedder" , From: Yakov Shafranovich In-Reply-To: <009901c340e6$802a08c0$04555ccc@kensington> References: <3F03428E.2010401@garbagedump.com> 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: 6. Solutions - Longterm - Replacing SMTP (Re: [Asrg] Bogus reasoning) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 02 Jul 2003 20:01:09 -0400 At 06:08 PM 7/2/2003 -0400, Elric Pedder wrote: > > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of C. Wegrzyn > > Sent: July 2, 2003 16:38 > > To: Barry Shein > > Cc: gep2@terabites.com; Yakov Shafranovich; asrg@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: 6. Solutions - Longterm - Replacing SMTP (Re: > > [Asrg] Bogus reasoning) > > > I believe the only real alternative is for every ISP (and > > this can be done I believe) to take on a per-email > > transaction fee. > >This proposal is made quite often, but I cannot see how it >would work. > >SMTP does not require the participation of any ISP other than >for the transmission of packets. >[..] In the proposal put forth by William Dnes, there would be a parallel business email system based on charging. The two systems will interoperate as far as business email can be sent to personal mailboxes but not vice versa. In other systems, a centralized registrar is used. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 20:55:33 2003 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 UAA07706 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:55:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XsNN-0006wW-Uc for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:55:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h630t56r026682 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:55:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XsNN-0006wH-RP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:55:05 -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 UAA07661; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:55:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XsNL-00006A-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:55:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XsNK-000067-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:55:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XsNK-0006uJ-23; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:55:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XsMy-0006tJ-BS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:54:40 -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 UAA07651 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:54:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XsMw-00005p-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:54:38 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XsMv-00005i-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:54:37 -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 h630sblo004918; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:54:37 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01736; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:54:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16131.32460.195542.481013@world.std.com> To: Bruce Stephens Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Warning people of "intent to send" large quantities of email In-Reply-To: <84y8zgsnct.fsf@cenderis.demon.co.uk> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030701203350.00bd2df8@std5.imagineis.com> <3F02CA1F.2020905@garbagedump.com> <16131.12441.265856.202223@world.std.com> <84y8zgsnct.fsf@cenderis.demon.co.uk> 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, 2 Jul 2003 20:54:36 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On July 2, 2003 at 21:08 Bruce.Stephens@isode.com (Bruce Stephens) wrote: > Barry Shein writes: > > [...] > > > 2. If the purpose of spam is to sell something then the spammer or > > their client has a business nexus within the country being spammed, > > with a few exceptions (stock pumping or selling vacation homes in > > the foreign country or whatever, hardly an objection tho.) > > If only! My isode.com address doesn't scream out my country of > residence, but I regularly receive spam to my .demon.co.uk home > address which is obviously not intended for people outside the US. Well, that's because you live in a marginalized little island nation that didn't even have the good sense to relent on a few bucks in taxes and hang onto a nation which relatively quickly became as great as all Europe combined. (Happy 4th of July! But we don't have a 4th of July here! ... No? You go straight from the 3rd to the 5th??? Interesting!!!) -- -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 Jul 2 20:59:32 2003 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 UAA07959 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:59:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XsRD-00076U-NF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:59:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h630x3LI027300 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:59:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XsRD-00076F-Il for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:59:03 -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 UAA07936; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:59:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XsRB-0000Dd-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:59:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XsRA-0000Da-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:59:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XsRA-000738-S4; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:59:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XsR6-00072s-Ta for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:58:56 -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 UAA07924 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:58:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XsR4-0000DG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:58:54 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XsR3-0000Cg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:58:53 -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 h630wcwD031471; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:58:38 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA02592; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:58:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16131.32702.114682.219965@world.std.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: , Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within consent paradigm In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702154710.00b4e230@std5.imagineis.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030702124014.00b9f008@pop.pocketmail.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030702154710.00b4e230@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, 2 Jul 2003 20:58:38 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Yakov Shafranovich >A human being expresses consent for specific messages. The consent system >tries its best to implement those wishes. Unfortunately the wishes of >humans and the results of computers do not necessarily match. There is a >need for a distinction between consent expressed by a human being and how >this consent is implemented by computers. However, the bottom line is that >any message that a human receiver does not want - does not consent to, is >considering spam according to that person. Although reasonable-sounding these descriptions are starting to remind me of those long-ago Artificial Intelligence seminars where you'd get to ponder why some seemingly simple human behavior was so difficult to code into a program. "Time flies like an arrow" and all 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 Wed Jul 2 21:20:37 2003 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 VAA08934 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:20:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xsld-00087K-NO for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:20:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h631K98A031196 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:20:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xsld-000875-I7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:20:09 -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 VAA08899; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:20:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xsla-0000bP-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:20:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xsla-0000bM-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:20:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XslW-00081D-Dc; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:20:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xsl8-000809-GC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:19:38 -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 VAA08866 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:19:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xsl5-0000ah-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:19:35 -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 19Xsl5-0000aM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:19:35 -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 19XskJ-00039k-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:18:47 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Forbes: Pay up In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:16:16 PDT." <5.2.1.1.0.20030702161551.045b6408@mail.comcast.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: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:18:47 -0400 Steve Schear wrote: > A promising way to curb spam: Charge the sender. I've always been somewhat mystified by these solutions. While they appear to be useful, they drastically change the trust model for network traffic. (SMTP =~ no trust needed or used, $$ =~ trust, who?) I haven't seen analyses that such a change in the trust model would be acceptable to the recipient. That is, would the possible centralization of the administration of $$ (i.e. trust verification) be less problematic to the recipient than spam? I could see people deciding that receiving ~100 spams/week is a reasonable trade-off for preventing a third party from having access to your email messages, or habits. In addition, changing the cost/benefit trade-off for one network behaviour will also result in changing the cost/benefit trade-offs for other network behaviours. If SMTP has costs, some "inventive" person will discover a way to avoid the cost through abusing another protocol. As a more general statement, I'm not sure that the current trust/consent model on the Internet can be applied to the future, unless we re-visit the whole gamut of assumptions, designs, implementations, and use patterns. But that's outside of the scope of ASRG... Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 21:29:00 2003 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 VAA09504 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:29:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xstl-0000LX-77 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:28:33 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h631SXtQ001325 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:28:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xstl-0000LI-4A for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:28:33 -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 VAA09477; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:28:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xsti-0000qy-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:28:30 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xsth-0000pE-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:28:29 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XstE-0000EO-MW; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:28:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xssf-0000Dw-Dp for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:27:25 -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 VAA09474 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:27:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xssc-0000p0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:27:22 -0400 Received: from pcls4.std.com ([199.172.62.106] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xssc-0000ox-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:27:22 -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 h631RIJe029235; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:27:18 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA08675; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:27:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16131.34421.609532.924813@world.std.com> To: "Roy S. Walker" Cc: , ASRG , Subject: Re: [Asrg] Forbes: Pay up In-Reply-To: <200307022320.h62NKgxB027562@imta.advascan.com> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20030702161551.045b6408@mail.comcast.net> <200307022320.h62NKgxB027562@imta.advascan.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, 2 Jul 2003 21:27:17 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On July 3, 2003 at 00:46 roy.walker@advascan.com (Roy S. Walker) wrote: > "Charge the sender" was discussed yesterday at the famous 'spam summit' at the house of commons in > the UK. View seems to be: this will further encourage the practice of spammers to gain control of > legitimate email servers, with the intention of sending out spam from an 'authorised' sender (the > recent piece on the BBC re British Airways as a source of spam refers..). This idea will NOT work > in practice. Naive innocents would pick up the charge. I don't agree with that. There are many instances in life where some unscrupulous person could cause charges to unfairly be attributed to you. Somehow, we cope, such as cancellable credit card transactions etc. What it does is raise the bar on: a) Securing one's system lest they be put in a situation of having to get charges removed. b) Providing an economic base (actual revenue and loss of revenue to fraud) to pursue spammers with. Imagine if credit cards were simply these (nearly) free services which, say, only simplified the process of a merchant billing a customer, perhaps a swipe just provides standardized information to the merchant's POS system to generate a bill, mailing info etc. How could the credit card companies possibly pursue fraud? But, add that 2-4% in merchant charges and the billions in income lost to the banks over fraudulent charges etc and suddenly there is both the will and the way to pursue fraud vigorously. Doesn't eliminate fraud entirely, but we certainly don't feel any need to volunteer our time on IETF mailing lists to kick around ideas on how to curb credit card fraud! Why? Because there's big bux in pursuing credit card fraud. Just about none in pursuing 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 exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 21:37:36 2003 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 VAA09729 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:37:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xt24-0000aU-Ne for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:37:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h631b8pp002252 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:37:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xt24-0000aF-KI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:37:08 -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 VAA09718; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:37:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xt21-0000wE-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:37:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xt21-0000wB-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:37:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xt1w-0000Xh-LH; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:37:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xt1V-0000XC-CY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:36:33 -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 VAA09715 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:36:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xt1S-0000vx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:36:30 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xt1R-0000vu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:36:29 -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 h631aPlo001117; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:36:29 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA10567; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:36:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16131.34958.614185.654845@world.std.com> To: "C. Wegrzyn" Cc: Elric Pedder , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 6. Solutions - Longterm - Replacing SMTP (Re: [Asrg] Bogus reasoning) In-Reply-To: <3F036024.5050607@garbagedump.com> References: <009901c340e6$802a08c0$04555ccc@kensington> <3F036024.5050607@garbagedump.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, 2 Jul 2003 21:36:14 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The idea of charging isn't all that difficult, you just have to find an amenable model. For example, you charge a sender to put email INTO an end-user's mailbox (or not, feel free to accept mail directly into your own system for free.) No payment arrangement, no delivery. Then just allow some free amount which covers most personal usage by metering the inflow. But one source sends more than, say, 10K msgs in a month, some threshold, tell them they pay from here on or you drop all their mail on the floor with the understanding that continuing to try will be billed also (USE CONSTITUTES ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS) and bills pursued. Reserve the right to make exceptions for any reason without explanation (e.g., if you wanted to let the recent FTC responses through.) Now you have an economic incentive to go after spammers, and good legal basis (theft of service, wire fraud, etc.) To simplify matters turn it all over to a service to take care of the billing 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 exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 2 22:56:39 2003 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 WAA12236 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 22:56:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XuGb-0002WE-P3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:56:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h632uDKw009683 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 22:56:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XuGb-0002W6-Jx for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:56:13 -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 WAA12231; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 22:56:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XuGY-0001um-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:56:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XuGX-0001ui-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:56:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XuGO-0002UA-LE; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:56:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XuG7-0002To-J2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:55:43 -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 WAA12221 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 22:55:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XuG4-0001uT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:55:40 -0400 Received: from bay8-f102.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.102] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XuG3-0001uK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:55:39 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:55:09 -0700 Received: from 62.252.200.2 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 02:55:09 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.200.2] 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: 03 Jul 2003 02:55:09.0329 (UTC) FILETIME=[83CFD810:01C3410E] Subject: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #296 - 37 msgs Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 03 Jul 2003 02:55:09 +0000 Thankyou for your comments. My responses are in the body of the message below. This post related to the 'GIEIS' system currently at Version 0.002. Another update is coming soon adding financial justifications, and statistics. Also, details of the new 'Common Authentication Architecture' (CAA) will be released to. The 'CAA' will be designed for businesses and developing online credibility. 'GIEIS' - 'Global ISP Email Identity System' may be viewed here: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. > >Message: 1 >From: "Hondin de Goot" >To: asrg@ietf.org >Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:02:19 -0500 >Subject: [Asrg] As requested > >Mark Carron wrote: > > > Why not actually join the debate on 'GIEIS' instead of posting > > subject matters that have nothing to do with this group? > > >OK: > Mark's Response: Thankyou. >The only reason why "spam" is a TECHNICAL NETWORKING >problem is because it is almost cost-free to the SENDER. > Mark's Response: This is not entirely accurate. Spam is the direct result in failures of design in the SMTP protocol. The SMTP protocol has very little ability to confirm any details other than packet checks. All filtration there must be done at a higher level. People have demonstrated concerns about 'GIEIS' using heuristics to analyse email, however, I would like to point out, how do they think it is currently done? Also, a protocol is only a set of rules for transmission. No protocol on its own could ever ever secure SMTP or SMTP like communications. Such a system would always have to based on good will. In an ideal world that would be nice, as we can see on the internet with 40% of emails being spam and a further 20% being virus', trojans, etc. goodwill has limits. In order to secure communications, an additional layer must be the added to the internet that establishes a coherent architecture for all communication protocols (examples would be SMTP, NNTP, and chat protocols). This coherent architecture prevents those flooding the internet with terrabytes of unsolicited emails and 'bot spam' from being able to do so. >(1) In the short to medium term > >Devise a method of reasonably reliably identifying bulk spam, >UCE or UBE and levying a charge on the senders (via any of their >upstream carriers, financial pain having the properties that it >does) which approaches that of any other method of commercial >or non-private bulk message delivery and most of the TECHNICAL >NETWORKING problems associated with spam - which are almost >entirely due intractable volumes of traffic - would rapidly >disappear. > Mark's Response: The problem with this suggestion is that spammers are difficult to trace and even when traced there lacks the proper legal frameworks to do much about it. A typical spammer will connect a chain of up to 20 proxies before launching an email flood. By altering the IP addresses of the the proxies at a random based on a large list (of possibly tens of thousands) he can make it appear that these machines are the offenders and not him. Also, a lot of spammers use HTTP tunneling across socks proxies which leaves an anonymous connection. Spam is a direct result of a basic topology flaw of the internet. >Furthermore, the relatively small community subsumed under the >identity "upstream carriers" and its heavy dependence on an even >smaller number of common interconnects and transit agreements >essential to maintaining the quality/marketability of its product >(not excluding the attractiveness of its product to spammers) >would greatly reduce the difficulty of reaching, the task of >implementing and the central cost of policing any agreement: >most dispute resolution would tend to move towards end users and >"leaf AS"s on the one hand, less towards established *IX or their >fora on the other. The politically difficult part - arriving at >basic definitions and a workable system of collections - which >would be simplified by being largely effected at industry rather >than governmental level, though some arm twisting by legislators >might well be required, would best be progressed through those >fora or some especially constituted offshoots of them, while >the technically difficult part, appropriate for discussion here, >would lie in the automation of identification and settlements. > >(2) In the longer term > >Reformulate the basics of the mail transport protocol. That, >however, is a MUCH longer term project than is evident to any >but a few of those who do not have to wrestle daily with keeping >even reasonably loaded current systems financed and running, let >alone implementing and installing major upgrades, or those who >have little idea of the vast amount of installed infrastructure >that would have to be replaced or accommodated. Furthermore, it >is an extremely rigorous field only peripherally amenable to inputs >from here. SMTP may be unequal to the UNRESTRAINED stresses of >a primarily commercial Internet, but it is by no means a simple >minded mail transport protocol and it is not at all obvious that >it would so urgently need significant overhaul in an environment >where some reasonable degree of financial regulation replaced >the original institutional regulation. In fact, like many of >the basic Internet services, not excluding post-CIDR IPv4, it >has scaled extraordinarily well. > Mark's Response: A reformulation of the SMTP protocol and implementation to the market place could be completed within 3 years. The industry is losing to much money as it stands and this is only set to increase. If they bite-the-bullet now, it will save them hundreds of billions in the long term and generate twice as much in new business. Once the main architecture is designed, moving to a real world platform is a relatively easy process. You practically have a step by step guide with 'GIEIS'. >That's it. > >ANY concern with content or personal identification of the >senders of email that is not, outside of the envelope, a >TECHNICAL problem is no part of an appropriate TECHNICAL >solution to the NETWORKING problems of bulk spam/UCE/UBE. > >With a sheet of paper, a pen, a postage stamp, an envelope >and a public mail box it is possible to send an anonymous >letter, lawful or otherwise, on any subject, to any person, >institution or business behind a physical mail box. Any >solution to the TECHNICAL NETWORKING problems of spam, etc, >which renders Internet email - already inherently much more >traceable than most postal mail - even less able to handle >securely the communications of whistle blowers, or political >or social dissidents in Western or other jurisdictions, or >criminals, or little old grannies sending unattributed uplift >to psychiatric outpatients, whatever, as well as the mundane, >everyday drivel of normal communication, is a solution which >injects political and social considerations to the relative >detriment of electronic mail vis-a-vis the traditional mail >it is rapidly supplanting. And is therefore unacceptable. > Mark's Response: I think you are forgeting another aspect of email, that is, it can be encrypted. Just because they can identfy which account the information came from, does not mean they can read its contents. Also, the costs involved in trying to break something like a Twofish ciper would far outway the value of the message and with a decent alphanumeric passphrase, it is unlikely they would access it within your life-time. People's privacy would be unaffected. >And any solution which involves analysis of message headers >or bodies beyond that required by legislation enacted in the >specific originating, transit or destination jurisdictions >involved represents a gross invasion of personal privacy or >commercial confidence (and I'm doubtful of granting authority >to mere transit jurisdictions). The proper place to impose >political, social or commercial control on the contents of >either postal mail or electronic mail is not from within >some demented center of globalized electronic surveillance. > Mark's Response: This is how current anti-spam systems work and I do not see any mass public outcry about it. Also, as I have pointed out before, governments across the world have super-computers dedicated to surveillance. They also have billion dallar budgets to support dedicated infrastructures for surveillance and follow-up surveillance. 'GIEIS' would be redundant in such a role. >It is not worth addressing any even more bizarrely ignorant >proposals which put forward tecnhical abuse of the network, >from port scanning on up, as some kind valid control system. > Mark's Response: It is worth addressing. A port scan only tests for basic security and access to a system. It is hardly a physical assault, also, coming from a trusted domain everyone would be quite aware it was not a breach attempt on their systems. Since these scans would be sent clear text across the web anyone with a little knowledge could analyse them. If there was anything suspisious it would be repoted instantly all over the world. >Although Usenet is now largely (but, even yet, by any means >entirely) transported via NNTP, it is no part of the remit >of a TECHNICAL NETWORKING group, only loosely associated with >only one of its transmission protocols, to attempt to control >its content in any way other than from within Usenet's own >already well-established and effective control structures. >It is not encumbent on any ISP/IAP to provide a full (or any) >net news feed to its subscribers, and UDP is readily available >to any subset of news administrators who wish to apply it as >an ultimate remedy for the perceived transgressions of others. > Mark's Response: It is part of this remit. The remit of this group relates to spam, not specific protocols. Spam is an issue that affects the NNTP protocol s well. NNTP has the same flaws in security as SMTP. The GSMTP protocol behind 'GIEIS' will be a hybrid protocol that will standardize a single transmission protocol between all internet based communication systems. Newsgroups are flooded with spam, Usenet's current procedures have proved ineffective. Also, we are only eliminating fraudulent emails. . >The only politically mandated form of legal tender is currency >and while numerous commercial enterprises, each with their own >private, non-social agendas, offer alternatives - often, and >probably not without some foundation in fact, rumoured to have >significant to massive internal problems with security, fraud >and identity theft - in view of their fundamental opacity in >those regards they comprise no valid basis of any sort for any >mandatory access system within the public Internet at any level. > Mark's Response: I disagree with this point. 'GIEIS' would only assist with companies establsihing credibility on the internet. All companys would have to be 'GIEIS' registered and that requires being a legitimate registered company. 'GIEIS' under the 'CAA' system (details will be released in the next few days) would be able to retrieve company information, past complaints, and a complaints procedure system. Another feature of the system, is that it would be able to confirm emails were sent by employees from any company. 'CAA' will be part of the 'Internet Better Business Guild' that will be lead by 'GIEIS'. All companies that pass 'GIEIS' checks will be awarded a reference number. This will also take the form of a link that will appear in a small graphic on their website. This will lead directly to 'GIEIS' online reporting system and list extensive details on the company including previous complaints and resolutions with customers. This would virtually eliminate fraudulent business on the Internet. >I am not a fully-combined brain surgeon+architect, accountant >registered in the British Isles (sic) + renowned egyptologist, >theoretical physicist, etc, and, although I have forgotten more >about networking than - I am sorry to say - it is obvious that >some of those poncing^h^h^h^htificating about in this list have >yet learned, or probably ever will learn, neither do I have, >anymore, the energy to input the sort of technical diligence >and effort that most technical networking problems, not least >this one, require. However, that is no great loss as many >absolutely better technical brains that could, hopefully will, >find viable TECHNICAL solutions to the TECHNICAL components of >the problem at hand, without imposing spurious limitations or >introducing intrusive socio-political constraints, also subscribe >here and in other equally competent mileau. Which is why I have >left it to them both until now and from now on. > Mark's Response: That's ok, you can't all be like me, then everything would work and there would be nothing to do. :) Only 'GIEIS' or one based on it could secure the Internet. A protocol alone cannot secure the Internet. A protocol only tells data how to transmit itself, not if it should be transmitted or not. No constraints are being introduced other than that which to protect networks, children, etc. Uncensored access will still remain and will be one of the mandates behind 'GIEIS'. The instrusion that 'GIEIS' would make would mostly be of the automated variety. Nothing more than is currently being done. >As an aside, some of the more mouthily ignorant reading here >undoubtedly already knew, in an a priori kind of way associated >with a prescient understanding of all technologies unto all >(wo)men, that an SMTP server is that process in an SMTP >transaction which receives mail and an SMTP client is that >process which sends it. And that POP3/IMAP mail queues are, >for the most part, fed with messages received by SMTP servers >acting in their usual role of MTAs. They just briefly forgot it. > >Finally, although I'm not a polymathic genius, even of the >psychiatric recidivist sort, nevertheless I do know a vapid >wannabe-Mr-Big timewaster trying to pass off a lazy streak of >intellectual self indulgence with an unjustifiable illusion >of superiority under the cover of a fraudulent facility with >undigested concepts when I see one, and I also know how subtly >but basically destructive of constructive group effort - >particularly the inputs of the socially naive, which are >thereby wasted beyond measure and excuse - such posturing >almost inevitably is, however beneficent it appears to be >en passant. And, even for a dog, it's a relatively trivial >exercise in network forensics to establish with near certainty >that the previous deranged postings of a technical incompetent >did indeed originate with the same, in exactly the form they >currently have, thus casting (to use a technical term) denials >as self serving lies, aimed at asserting unquestioned "authority" >in a field where it has not earned, through the sheer, hard work >of researching the systems involved, the right to be asserted. > >Nothing wrong with learning on the job, provided it is from >an attitude of supplication. > >Now, where's that unsubscribe button? Ah, here i > Mark's Response: That is one way of putting it, but I don't see anything here that demonstrates that you are able to bypass my system. Mark McCarron. _________________________________________________________________ Tired of 56k? Get a FREE BT Broadband connection 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 Wed Jul 2 23:31:14 2003 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 XAA13106 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 23:31:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xuo3-0003br-2x for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:30:47 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h633UlQ4013876 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 23:30:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xuo2-0003bj-T5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:30:46 -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 XAA13075; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 23:30:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xuo0-0002Cj-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:30:44 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xuo0-0002Cg-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:30:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XunJ-0003Ui-Q3; Wed, 02 Jul 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 19Xumh-0003Tz-U7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:29:23 -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 XAA13013 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 23:29:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xumf-0002Bt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:29:21 -0400 Received: from bay8-f64.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.64] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xumf-0002BY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:29:21 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:28:51 -0700 Received: from 62.252.200.2 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 03:28:51 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.200.2] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fourth Response Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2003 03:28:51.0347 (UTC) FILETIME=[39074E30:01C34113] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 03 Jul 2003 03:28:51 +0000 Thankyou for your comments. My responses are in the body of the message below. This post related to the 'GIEIS' system currently at Version 0.002. Another update is coming soon adding financial justifications, and statistics. Also, details of the new 'Common Authentication Architecture' (CAA) will be released to. The 'CAA' will be designed for businesses and developing online credibility. 'GIEIS' - 'Global ISP Email Identity System' may be viewed here: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. > >Message: 1 >From: "Hondin de Goot" >To: asrg@ietf.org >Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:02:19 -0500 >Subject: [Asrg] As requested > >Mark Carron wrote: > > > Why not actually join the debate on 'GIEIS' instead of posting > > subject matters that have nothing to do with this group? > > >OK: > Mark's Response: Thankyou. >The only reason why "spam" is a TECHNICAL NETWORKING >problem is because it is almost cost-free to the SENDER. > Mark's Response: This is not entirely accurate. Spam is the direct result in failures of design in the SMTP protocol. The SMTP protocol has very little ability to confirm any details other than packet checks. All filtration there must be done at a higher level. People have demonstrated concerns about 'GIEIS' using heuristics to analyse email, however, I would like to point out, how do they think it is currently done? Also, a protocol is only a set of rules for transmission. No protocol on its own could ever ever secure SMTP or SMTP like communications. Such a system would always have to based on good will. In an ideal world that would be nice, as we can see on the internet with 40% of emails being spam and a further 20% being virus', trojans, etc. goodwill has limits. In order to secure communications, an additional layer must be the added to the internet that establishes a coherent architecture for all communication protocols (examples would be SMTP, NNTP, and chat protocols). This coherent architecture prevents those flooding the internet with terrabytes of unsolicited emails and 'bot spam' from being able to do so. >(1) In the short to medium term > >Devise a method of reasonably reliably identifying bulk spam, >UCE or UBE and levying a charge on the senders (via any of their >upstream carriers, financial pain having the properties that it >does) which approaches that of any other method of commercial >or non-private bulk message delivery and most of the TECHNICAL >NETWORKING problems associated with spam - which are almost >entirely due intractable volumes of traffic - would rapidly >disappear. > Mark's Response: The problem with this suggestion is that spammers are difficult to trace and even when traced there lacks the proper legal frameworks to do much about it. A typical spammer will connect a chain of up to 20 proxies before launching an email flood. By altering the IP addresses of the the proxies at a random based on a large list (of possibly tens of thousands) he can make it appear that these machines are the offenders and not him. Also, a lot of spammers use HTTP tunneling across socks proxies which leaves an anonymous connection. Spam is a direct result of a basic topology flaw of the internet. >Furthermore, the relatively small community subsumed under the >identity "upstream carriers" and its heavy dependence on an even >smaller number of common interconnects and transit agreements >essential to maintaining the quality/marketability of its product >(not excluding the attractiveness of its product to spammers) >would greatly reduce the difficulty of reaching, the task of >implementing and the central cost of policing any agreement: >most dispute resolution would tend to move towards end users and >"leaf AS"s on the one hand, less towards established *IX or their >fora on the other. The politically difficult part - arriving at >basic definitions and a workable system of collections - which >would be simplified by being largely effected at industry rather >than governmental level, though some arm twisting by legislators >might well be required, would best be progressed through those >fora or some especially constituted offshoots of them, while >the technically difficult part, appropriate for discussion here, >would lie in the automation of identification and settlements. > >(2) In the longer term > >Reformulate the basics of the mail transport protocol. That, >however, is a MUCH longer term project than is evident to any >but a few of those who do not have to wrestle daily with keeping >even reasonably loaded current systems financed and running, let >alone implementing and installing major upgrades, or those who >have little idea of the vast amount of installed infrastructure >that would have to be replaced or accommodated. Furthermore, it >is an extremely rigorous field only peripherally amenable to inputs >from here. SMTP may be unequal to the UNRESTRAINED stresses of >a primarily commercial Internet, but it is by no means a simple >minded mail transport protocol and it is not at all obvious that >it would so urgently need significant overhaul in an environment >where some reasonable degree of financial regulation replaced >the original institutional regulation. In fact, like many of >the basic Internet services, not excluding post-CIDR IPv4, it >has scaled extraordinarily well. > Mark's Response: A reformulation of the SMTP protocol and implementation to the market place could be completed within 3 years. The industry is losing to much money as it stands and this is only set to increase. If they bite-the-bullet now, it will save them hundreds of billions in the long term and generate twice as much in new business. Once the main architecture is designed, moving to a real world platform is a relatively easy process. You practically have a step by step guide with 'GIEIS'. >That's it. > >ANY concern with content or personal identification of the >senders of email that is not, outside of the envelope, a >TECHNICAL problem is no part of an appropriate TECHNICAL >solution to the NETWORKING problems of bulk spam/UCE/UBE. > >With a sheet of paper, a pen, a postage stamp, an envelope >and a public mail box it is possible to send an anonymous >letter, lawful or otherwise, on any subject, to any person, >institution or business behind a physical mail box. Any >solution to the TECHNICAL NETWORKING problems of spam, etc, >which renders Internet email - already inherently much more >traceable than most postal mail - even less able to handle >securely the communications of whistle blowers, or political >or social dissidents in Western or other jurisdictions, or >criminals, or little old grannies sending unattributed uplift >to psychiatric outpatients, whatever, as well as the mundane, >everyday drivel of normal communication, is a solution which >injects political and social considerations to the relative >detriment of electronic mail vis-a-vis the traditional mail >it is rapidly supplanting. And is therefore unacceptable. > Mark's Response: I think you are forgeting another aspect of email, that is, it can be encrypted. Just because they can identfy which account the information came from, does not mean they can read its contents. Also, the costs involved in trying to break something like a Twofish ciper would far outway the value of the message and with a decent alphanumeric passphrase, it is unlikely they would access it within your life-time. People's privacy would be unaffected. >And any solution which involves analysis of message headers >or bodies beyond that required by legislation enacted in the >specific originating, transit or destination jurisdictions >involved represents a gross invasion of personal privacy or >commercial confidence (and I'm doubtful of granting authority >to mere transit jurisdictions). The proper place to impose >political, social or commercial control on the contents of >either postal mail or electronic mail is not from within >some demented center of globalized electronic surveillance. > Mark's Response: This is how current anti-spam systems work and I do not see any mass public outcry about it. Also, as I have pointed out before, governments across the world have super-computers dedicated to surveillance. They also have billion dallar budgets to support dedicated infrastructures for surveillance and follow-up surveillance. 'GIEIS' would be redundant in such a role. >It is not worth addressing any even more bizarrely ignorant >proposals which put forward tecnhical abuse of the network, >from port scanning on up, as some kind valid control system. > Mark's Response: It is worth addressing. A port scan only tests for basic security and access to a system. It is hardly a physical assault, also, coming from a trusted domain everyone would be quite aware it was not a breach attempt on their systems. Since these scans would be sent clear text across the web anyone with a little knowledge could analyse them. If there was anything suspisious it would be repoted instantly all over the world. >Although Usenet is now largely (but, even yet, by any means >entirely) transported via NNTP, it is no part of the remit >of a TECHNICAL NETWORKING group, only loosely associated with >only one of its transmission protocols, to attempt to control >its content in any way other than from within Usenet's own >already well-established and effective control structures. >It is not encumbent on any ISP/IAP to provide a full (or any) >net news feed to its subscribers, and UDP is readily available >to any subset of news administrators who wish to apply it as >an ultimate remedy for the perceived transgressions of others. > Mark's Response: It is part of this remit. The remit of this group relates to spam, not specific protocols. Spam is an issue that affects the NNTP protocol s well. NNTP has the same flaws in security as SMTP. The GSMTP protocol behind 'GIEIS' will be a hybrid protocol that will standardize a single transmission protocol between all internet based communication systems. Newsgroups are flooded with spam, Usenet's current procedures have proved ineffective. Also, we are only eliminating fraudulent emails. . >The only politically mandated form of legal tender is currency >and while numerous commercial enterprises, each with their own >private, non-social agendas, offer alternatives - often, and >probably not without some foundation in fact, rumoured to have >significant to massive internal problems with security, fraud >and identity theft - in view of their fundamental opacity in >those regards they comprise no valid basis of any sort for any >mandatory access system within the public Internet at any level. > Mark's Response: I disagree with this point. 'GIEIS' would only assist with companies establsihing credibility on the internet. All companys would have to be 'GIEIS' registered and that requires being a legitimate registered company. 'GIEIS' under the 'CAA' system (details will be released in the next few days) would be able to retrieve company information, past complaints, and a complaints procedure system. Another feature of the system, is that it would be able to confirm emails were sent by employees from any company. 'CAA' will be part of the 'Internet Better Business Guild' that will be lead by 'GIEIS'. All companies that pass 'GIEIS' checks will be awarded a reference number. This will also take the form of a link that will appear in a small graphic on their website. This will lead directly to 'GIEIS' online reporting system and list extensive details on the company including previous complaints and resolutions with customers. This would virtually eliminate fraudulent business on the Internet. >I am not a fully-combined brain surgeon+architect, accountant >registered in the British Isles (sic) + renowned egyptologist, >theoretical physicist, etc, and, although I have forgotten more >about networking than - I am sorry to say - it is obvious that >some of those poncing^h^h^h^htificating about in this list have >yet learned, or probably ever will learn, neither do I have, >anymore, the energy to input the sort of technical diligence >and effort that most technical networking problems, not least >this one, require. However, that is no great loss as many >absolutely better technical brains that could, hopefully will, >find viable TECHNICAL solutions to the TECHNICAL components of >the problem at hand, without imposing spurious limitations or >introducing intrusive socio-political constraints, also subscribe >here and in other equally competent mileau. Which is why I have >left it to them both until now and from now on. > Mark's Response: That's ok, you can't all be like me, then everything would work and there would be nothing to do. :) Only 'GIEIS' or one based on it could secure the Internet. A protocol alone cannot secure the Internet. A protocol only tells data how to transmit itself, not if it should be transmitted or not. No constraints are being introduced other than that which to protect networks, children, etc. Uncensored access will still remain and will be one of the mandates behind 'GIEIS'. The instrusion that 'GIEIS' would make would mostly be of the automated variety. Nothing more than is currently being done. >As an aside, some of the more mouthily ignorant reading here >undoubtedly already knew, in an a priori kind of way associated >with a prescient understanding of all technologies unto all >(wo)men, that an SMTP server is that process in an SMTP >transaction which receives mail and an SMTP client is that >process which sends it. And that POP3/IMAP mail queues are, >for the most part, fed with messages received by SMTP servers >acting in their usual role of MTAs. They just briefly forgot it. > >Finally, although I'm not a polymathic genius, even of the >psychiatric recidivist sort, nevertheless I do know a vapid >wannabe-Mr-Big timewaster trying to pass off a lazy streak of >intellectual self indulgence with an unjustifiable illusion >of superiority under the cover of a fraudulent facility with >undigested concepts when I see one, and I also know how subtly >but basically destructive of constructive group effort - >particularly the inputs of the socially naive, which are >thereby wasted beyond measure and excuse - such posturing >almost inevitably is, however beneficent it appears to be >en passant. And, even for a dog, it's a relatively trivial >exercise in network forensics to establish with near certainty >that the previous deranged postings of a technical incompetent >did indeed originate with the same, in exactly the form they >currently have, thus casting (to use a technical term) denials >as self serving lies, aimed at asserting unquestioned "authority" >in a field where it has not earned, through the sheer, hard work >of researching the systems involved, the right to be asserted. > >Nothing wrong with learning on the job, provided it is from >an attitude of supplication. > >Now, where's that unsubscribe button? Ah, here i > Mark's Response: That is one way of putting it, but I don't see anything here that demonstrates that you are able to bypass my system. Mark McCarron. _________________________________________________________________ On the move? 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 Thu Jul 3 01:28:22 2003 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 BAA16064 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 01:28:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XwdM-0006Bk-MW for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 01:27:52 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h635Rqxc023782 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 01:27:52 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XwdM-0006BV-Ij for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 01:27:52 -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 BAA16047; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 01:27:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XwdJ-00030I-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 01:27:49 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XwdI-00030F-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 01:27:48 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XwcX-00064a-Lx; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 01:27:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xwbh-000644-Kz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 01:26:09 -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 BAA16021 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 01:26:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xwbe-0002zb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 01:26:06 -0400 Received: from 000-257-002.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.243.209] helo=68.27.243.209) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XwbV-0002zG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 01:26:02 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030703012520.00ba5170@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 - Telemarketers moving to 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, 03 Jul 2003 01:25:22 -0400 Take a look at this CNN Money article (http://money.cnn.com/2003/07/02/news/companies/telemarketers/): ----snip---- Companies that are major users of telemarketing calls are preparing to shift efforts to e-mail and direct mail once a new federal "do-not-call" list takes effect in October, according to a published report. The Wall Street Journal said Wednesday that companies such as AT&T and Allstate Insurance are looking to shift some of their sales efforts away from the phone solicitations that have been central to their business plans in the past. "We plan to shift into other communication mediums, and rely more heavily on traditional TV advertising and e-mail marketing," Allstate acting Chief Marketing Officer Todd DeYoung told the paper. "We also plan to stimulate inbound call volume by doing more directed advertising and more direct mail." ---snip--- The original WSJ article is available at (http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB105709304831164600,00.html). _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 02:15:39 2003 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 CAA29079 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 02:15:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XxN6-0000QF-UI for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 02:15:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h636F8eP001624 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 02:15:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XxN6-0000Q7-LH for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 02:15:08 -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 CAA29026; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 02:15:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XxN3-0003Vp-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 02:15:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XxN2-0003Vm-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 02:15:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XxN0-0000O2-6n; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 02:15:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XxM6-0000Gr-ER for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 02:14:06 -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 CAA28944 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 02:14:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XxM2-0003Vi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 02:14:02 -0400 Received: from ua77d142.elisa.omakaista.fi ([80.186.142.77] helo=laitinen.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XxM2-0003Va-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 02:14:02 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (uid 1000) by laitinen.org with local; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 09:13:38 +0300 From: Esa Laitinen To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fourth Response Message-ID: <20030703061338.GA10390@laitinen.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=_laitinen.org-10615-1057212818-0001-2" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 3 Jul 2003 09:13:38 +0300 This is a MIME-formatted message. If you see this text it means that your E-mail software does not support MIME-formatted messages. --=_laitinen.org-10615-1057212818-0001-2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:28:51AM +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: > It is worth addressing. A port scan only tests for basic security and=20 > access to a system. It is hardly a physical assault, also, coming from a= =20 > trusted domain everyone would be quite aware it was not a breach attempt = on=20 > their systems. Since these scans would be sent clear text across the web= =20 > anyone with a little knowledge could analyse them. If there was anything= =20 > suspisious it would be repoted instantly all over the world. Nevertheless port scanning is illegal in some parts of the world, with=20 convictions to back the claim (decision of Finnish Supreme Court, case=20 number KKO:2003:36). Welcome to Finland after you've started your large scale scanning ;-) --=20 PGP Fingerprint: 8C4D 4F5C 1094 5E00 D575 11B2 9412 AD93 7F78 EF7E Public key at: http://iki.fi/laitinen/pubkey.html YIM: reunaesa ICQ: 160631289 AIM: punkkinen MSN: esahi5@hotmail.com --=_laitinen.org-10615-1057212818-0001-2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/A8mSlBKtk394734RAryjAJ0XY0uOncmeUXiNhIIo7VQByG5HPgCeLBkS YzTJP36dMuqMSEr90LwyfT8= =qvym -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=_laitinen.org-10615-1057212818-0001-2-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 02:46:38 2003 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 CAA00279 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 02:46:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xxr7-0001Wl-Aq for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 02:46:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h636k92V005870 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 02:46:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xxr7-0001Wb-0x for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 02:46:09 -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 CAA00270; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 02:46:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xxr3-0003k8-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 02:46:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xxr2-0003k5-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 02:46:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xxqy-0001UV-6d; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 02:46:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xxq7-0001Tw-96 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 02:45:07 -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 CAA00262 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 02:45:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xxq3-0003jw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 02:45:03 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xxq2-0003jt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 02:45:03 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19Xxq3-0006g9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:45:03 +0100 In-Reply-To: <004001c340da$73eb3b30$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within consent paradigm To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.7] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 82.69.7.27 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, 03 Jul 2003 07:45:03 +0100 > Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > the bottom line is that any message that a human > > receiver does not want - does not consent to, is > > considering spam according to that person. > I don't buy it. Such a definition erases the distinctions > between different kinds of unwanted messages and in so doing removes > from discussion what may be useful information. > It may be "politically correct" to say that all unwanted mail is > spam, however, I strongly believe that taking such a fundamentalist > position is not conducive to the normally objective process of design. > If you force all "unwanted messages" into the single category of > "spam" then you have either ignored existing distinctions or you have > just declared "spam" to be synonymous with "unwanted message". Thus, > your definition: "spam is any unwanted message" is simply a tautology. > i.e. "Spam is Spam". No, this is no more of a tautology than to say "Fish are aquatic creatures with fins". You may say that "Fish are scaly creatures with swim-bladders and spots", in which case we have somewhat different definitions (one a subset of the other). That's all. The purpose of the group is to discuss the problem of "consent-based communication". For these purposes people often use "spam" as a convenient sorthand for "communication without consent". If you get rid of this "spam" then your kind of spam will cease to be a problem. To use a broad definition of the kind of message we're interested in stopping DOES NOT make it impossible to talk about subclasses, anymore than defining Mammals removes our ability to talk about Cats. But it's a silly argument anyway... -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 03:47:44 2003 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 DAA01470 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 03:47:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XyoF-0002vE-DT for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 03:47:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h637lFmc011229 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 03:47:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XyoF-0002v2-1N for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 03:47:15 -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 DAA01466; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 03:47:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XyoC-00040A-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 03:47:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XyoB-000407-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 03:47:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xyo1-0002t4-Kj; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 03:47:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XynA-0002sO-GO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 03:46:08 -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 DAA01454 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 03:46:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xyn8-0003zy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 03:46:06 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xyn7-0003zv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 03:46:05 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19Xyn8-0004Wm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 08:46:06 +0100 In-Reply-To: <16131.32460.195542.481013@world.std.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Warning people of "intent to send" large quantities of email To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.7] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 82.69.7.27 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, 03 Jul 2003 08:46:06 +0100 > > > > Well, that's because you live in a marginalized little island nation > that didn't even have the good sense to relent on a few bucks in taxes > and hang onto a nation which relatively quickly became as great as all > Europe combined. > > > Note for non-US readers: Every year at about this time, they take a day off to celebrate replacing one set of bosses with another set. This is what they call freedom. Meanwhile, the combine destroys the lives of millions and squanders the inheritance which rightly belongs to their children. Only joking. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 04:28:38 2003 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 EAA02121 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 04:28:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XzRp-0003r0-3E for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 04:28:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h638S9gH014809 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 04:28:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XzRn-0003qm-UM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 04:28:07 -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 EAA02108; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 04:28:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XzRl-0004AN-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 04:28:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XzRk-0004AK-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 04:28:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XzRh-0003om-U3; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 04:28:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XzR9-0003oM-HF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 04:27:27 -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 EAA02100 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 04:27:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XzR6-0004A5-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 04:27:24 -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 19XzR5-0004A1-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 04:27:23 -0400 Received: from ([192.168.0.1] helo=azza.com) by mail.azza.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #5) id 19XzQb-0006px-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 02:26:53 -0600 Message-ID: <3F03E8F5.5040107@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: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Nothing will stop 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, 03 Jul 2003 02:27:33 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit gep2@terabites.com wrote: > > Indeed, and I propose a hypothesis that *nothing* (practical, anyhow) will > prevent all possible spam from being sent. What will prevent spam from being sent? The undeniable knowledge that it will not ever be received and seen. (snip) > > >>To completely kill all spam will require a long term solutions. > > > I think it would take more than that... I think it would take a MIRACLE, or a > change in the basic physical laws of the universe. > What will kill spam? A total, comprehensive, complete, and absolute consent framework will kill spam. Under a consent framework, I instruct my incoming MTA not to accept email from anyone who cannot prove (through some defined method) that they have my consent to send me email. If you send me an email and you can't prove to my MTA that you have my consent, my MTA will not accept your email. It will disgard it or bounce it -- my choice. If you want my consent, you can ask for it. I may give consent, I may not respond. When a consent framework is in place on MTAs, MUAs, Web based MUAs, list servers, and wherever else it needs to be, people will use it. It must be made user friendly. They will hear about it on the media and from their tech friends and they will want to know how they can use it. They will install the latest upgrade of Outlook express on their "Windows computer" -- or they will have their tech friends help them. That will kill spam. Unfortunately, some of the motivation to kill spam is lost to much of the user community. The reason? Spam filters at the major ISPs. If people were still receiving all of that unfiltered spam, they would be much more motivated to use a consent based system. In fact, they would be motivated to use white lists. I use a very large white list in Exim to rescue false negatives from Spam Assassin. It doesn't cut down on internet traffic and I don't like it, but I use it because I dislike spam more. Once a consent framework is in place, filters should be turned off to raise the email users' spam agitation level and motivate the apathetic to use the consent framework. Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >> From: "Olson, Margaret" >> To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" >> Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within >> con >> (snip) >> >> (Contrary to popular belief, I have no problem with requiring consent >> to send mail.) >> >> Margaret. >> There, that's one person. There must be millions more. We can discuss server authentication, sender accountability, SMTP extensions, SMTP replacement, GIEIS, SPF, C/R, Reverse DNS, HTML mail blocking, greylisting, etc. forever. We need to simply require proof of consent. In the final analysis, I submit that with the right technology there will come the time that: When no one will accept spam, no one will send spam. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 07:00:43 2003 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 HAA05828 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:00:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y1p1-0007aT-2e for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:00:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63B0FAT029159 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:00:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y1p0-0007aE-Vv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:00:15 -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 HAA05823; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:00:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y1ow-00058s-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:00:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y1ow-00058p-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:00:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y1on-0007Y2-C9; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:00:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y1om-0007XP-8A for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:00:00 -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 GAA05801 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 06:59:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y1oh-00058d-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 06:59:55 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y1oh-00058a-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 06:59:55 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip70-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.70]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9655536B9A for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 06:59:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 3 Jul 2003 06:59:23 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating Message-ID: <20030703065923.A2063@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 aland@freeradius.org on Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 09:57:46AM -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: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 06:59:23 -0400 On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 09:57:46AM -0400, Alan DeKok wrote > 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. Let me address those points. Back in November of 2002, I got 43 spams from Korea, in Korean characterset, in the first 10 days of the month. China and Taiwan, both of whom had mercilessly pounded my old waltdnes@interlog.com account, had recently "discovered" my new personal domain. China was more worrisome, because some of their spam was in English, which slipped past my procmail filters that looked for foreign characters. Plus I was getting flooded with sob stories from Mrs. Miriam Booga, widow of the former Nigerian dictator, the late General Ooga Booga. In late December, I got an account at clss.net that allows end-users to set up individual blocklist selections and whitelists. Processing takes place just after RCPT:, and rejections consist of the big 550, not the mailbombing of innocent 3rd-parties that have been forged as the "From:" address. I was able to point my personal-domain MX-record at clss.net and keep my current email address. My spam count on this account has gone down from multiple spams per day to multiple days between spams. Yes, it took a bit of fiddling but it's worth it. Although I personally prefer editing with vim, there is a menu-driven setup option. As far as I'm concerned, my problem has been almost 100% cured. That cure is available to others. Bill Gates may be unhappy that it's done via a modified Qmail, and Exchange may not be able to duplicate that, but it's not my problem. > What amazes me is the opposition to anything *other* than short-term > band-aids. If you've got minor cuts, bandaids *ARE* the appropriate solution. Some of the suggested cures are worse than the disease. Since we're on this patient-doctor analogy, let me remind you of Hippocrates' admonition "First, do no harm". I'm willing to endure short-term pain for long-term gain, but I do want improvement that makes it worthwhile. -- 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 Jul 3 07:24:38 2003 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 HAA06605 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:24:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y2C7-0008Fc-SS for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:24:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63BO7m1031716 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:24:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y2C7-0008FT-PS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:24:07 -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 HAA06575; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:24:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y2C7-0005JG-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:24:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y2C6-0005JD-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:24:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y2C1-0008Bs-Ol; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:24:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y2BW-0008BY-Kz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:23:30 -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 HAA06504 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:23:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y2BV-0005Id-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:23:29 -0400 Received: from bill.lut.ac.uk ([158.125.1.193]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y2BU-0005Ia-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:23:29 -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 19Y2BU-0004A6-1h for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:23:28 +0100 Received: from [158.125.1.123] (helo=bod.lut.ac.uk) by studentpop1.lboro.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 19Y2BT-0002r7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:23:27 +0100 Received: from apache by bod.lut.ac.uk with local (Exim 4.12) id 19Y2BT-0003A2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:23:27 +0100 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Maintaining Anonymity in an Authenticated System Message-ID: <1057231407.3f04122febaa2@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> From: Andrew Akehurst 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: 0.4 (/) X-Scanner: exiscan for exim4 (http://duncanthrax.net/exiscan/) *19Y2BU-0004A6-1h*W5kXXoA9oqw* X-Lboro-Filtered: bill.lut.ac.uk, Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:23:28 +0100 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, 03 Jul 2003 11:23:27 +0000 (GMT) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >In all the discussion of authenticating individual senders rather than >the servers and MTAs they're using, we've all forgotten that there are >circumstances in which anonymity is a requirement. Think of corporate >whistle-blowing situations, in which someone wishes to send an anonymous >message to an entity like a media organization or the SEC. In a world >in which all transmissions are undeniably authenticated to a sender, >this becomes impossible. > >Anonymous transmission is indeed a feature of our current systems, not a >bug. Any new system or authentication layer on top of what already >exists needs to maintain that. As I understand it, most of the proposals of that nature are about tying messages to a specific e-mail address. Just because you can trace a message back to a certain address does not necessarily mean you can identify the human being who sent it. I could sign up for a fully-traced mail account and then use an anonymising proxy service to access it. Providing the mail service didn't check that the personal details I supply are correct (as far as I know, few mail services do), I could easily sign up with a false name and details. This would be especially simple for webmail accounts via anonymous web proxy (e.g. anonymizer.com) so that tracing the originating IP address would not be helpful. And if the mail service itself did not have my real personal details (because I wouldn't supply genuine ones) then how could anyone know who sent it? This is just an example, but there are many technical methods people can use to protect their physical identity. I'm not necessarily in favour of authentication schemes, in fact I've yet to be persuaded either way so I've no personal axe to grind. I just wanted to point out that "e-mail address != person". Andrew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 07:27:42 2003 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 HAA06713 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:27:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y2Ey-000051-7Q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:27:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63BR4ud000304 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:27:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y2Ey-0008WV-3L for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:27:04 -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 HAA06704; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:27:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y2Ex-0005L3-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:27:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y2Ew-0005L0-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:27:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y2Ev-0008Py-P7; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:27:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y2Eq-0008PJ-SE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:26:56 -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 HAA06695 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:26:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y2Eq-0005Kj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:26:56 -0400 Received: from host217-35-105-169.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.105.169] helo=mail.neosinteractive.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y2Ep-0005Kd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:26:55 -0400 Received: from tthomson ([217.35.105.173] unverified) by mail.neosinteractive.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:33:17 +0100 From: "Tom Thomson" To: "Jon Kyme" , "ASRG" Subject: RE: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within consent paradigm 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 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2003 11:33:17.0246 (UTC) FILETIME=[E5A785E0:01C34156] 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, 3 Jul 2003 12:26:54 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > the bottom line is that any message that a human > > > receiver does not want - does not consent to, is > > > considering spam according to that person. > > I don't buy it. Such a definition erases the distinctions > > between different kinds of unwanted messages and in so doing removes > > from discussion what may be useful information. > > It may be "politically correct" to say that all unwanted mail is > > spam, however, I strongly believe that taking such a fundamentalist > > position is not conducive to the normally objective process of design. > > If you force all "unwanted messages" into the single category of > > "spam" then you have either ignored existing distinctions or you have > > just declared "spam" to be synonymous with "unwanted message". Thus, > > your definition: "spam is any unwanted message" is simply a tautology. > > i.e. "Spam is Spam". > > No, this is no more of a tautology than to say "Fish are aquatic creatures > with fins". You may say that "Fish are scaly creatures with swim-bladders > and spots", in which case we have somewhat different definitions (one a > subset of the other). That's all. > > The purpose of the group is to discuss the problem of "consent-based > communication". For these purposes people often use "spam" as a convenient > sorthand for "communication without consent". If you get rid of this "spam" > then your kind of spam will cease to be a problem. One trouble here is that one moment you write "does not want" and at another you write "does not consent to" just as if they meant the same thing. They do not mean the same thing. I consent to receiving bills from the people who supply my electricty, but I don't want to receive those bills - I'd much rather have the electricity free. I don't think those bills are spam - in fact I believe that any definition of spam that includes those bills is just plain wrong. So spam is NOT "email the recipient does not want". Stick to conent, not desire. A definition like "Spam is email the recipient has not consented to" doesn't fall into that trap. Of course there are issues about how consent is expressed, how we can say that a user has consented to receive one email from one source he has never heard of but hasn't consented to receive another email from another source he has never heard of, and that probably brings us into the realms of AI, probably requiring a level of sophistication in AI that hasn't been achieved yet, but if we are lucky we may find that a good enough approximation will be acceptable. Then we will need some measure of goodness for approximations, which may involve looking at how often the consent expression is misinterpreted (ie our software "thinks" consent has been given when it hasn't, or "thinks" it hasn't when it has). We will find that what is good enough for some purposes or some users is not good enough for other purposes or other users. That leaves us right back with the same fundamental engineering issues we have with content filters! Of course some aspects of consent can be expressed cleanly: "I do not consent to receive mail which passed through a server which was, last time MAPS checked it, an open relay" doesn't need sophisticated encoding to represent it or clever AI to interpret it (although it does need more real intelligence than exhibited by many sysadmins, as demonstrated by the large number of corporate mail receivers that are using copies of the MAPS RSS list that are over a year out of date - I imagine this pisses the people who maintain MAPS RSS off as much as it pisses off the people who get messed up by it). Nor does "I do not consent to receive email from a server whose ip address has no rDNS". The trouble with these notions though is that the average email recipient doesn't know what they mean, so he's not going to express any part of his consent / non-consent (or his "consent policy" is that's what we try to represent) in those terms. Tom _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 07:51:37 2003 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 HAA07552 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:51:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y2cF-0000bj-IE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:51:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63Bp7C0002332 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:51:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y2cF-0000bX-Bz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:51:07 -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 HAA07538; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:51:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y2cE-0005Y8-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:51:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y2cD-0005Y5-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:51:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y2cA-0000Zb-9j; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:51:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y2bk-0000ZI-Ps for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:50:36 -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 HAA07515 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:50:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y2bj-0005Y0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:50:36 -0400 Received: from mx-out.daemonmail.net ([216.104.160.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y2bi-0005Xx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:50:34 -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 EAA75422 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 04:50:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from spencer@mcsr-labs.org) Received: from (12.237.229.250 [12.237.229.250]) by mail.varaha.com with SMTP id PcJ0vgP2 Thu, 03 Jul 2003 04:50:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <061701c34159$4f2bc830$0200a8c0@DFNJGL21> Reply-To: "Spencer Dawkins" From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: References: <1057231407.3f04122febaa2@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Maintaining Anonymity in an Authenticated System 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: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 06:50:32 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Akehurst" To: Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 6:23 AM Subject: Re: [Asrg] Maintaining Anonymity in an Authenticated System [deleted down to] > > > >Anonymous transmission is indeed a feature of our current systems, not a > >bug. Any new system or authentication layer on top of what already > >exists needs to maintain that. > > As I understand it, most of the proposals of that nature are about tying > messages to a specific e-mail address. Just because you can trace a message > back to a certain address does not necessarily mean you can identify the human > being who sent it. Ya know, I understand what you're saying, but (1) we're going through an IPv6 exercise to say "well, maybe MAC addresses are too closely tied to people to use them as part of autoconfigured IPv6 addresses", (2) for most users of personal computers, saying "someone else must have broken into my house and sent all this child porn from my PC" has not been observed to work very well, and (3) in order to say "IP addresses != people", you would need dynamic IP addresses that don't tie to NAIs, etc. - I believe all the IP addresses I use for POP3/SMTP can be traced back to me pretty easily... if I was a charter member of al Queda I'd be more motivated to hide, but I don't think anonymous POP3/SMTP is as easy as you're making it sound. By "anonymous", I'm talking about two-way communication - more than just sending an e-mail from Bill Gates saying "I'm really excited about this quarter's earnings prospects". Simple forgery is, of course, a variant of one-way anonymous communication. > > I could sign up for a fully-traced mail account and then use an anonymising > proxy service to access it. Providing the mail service didn't check that the > personal details I supply are correct (as far as I know, few mail services do), > I could easily sign up with a false name and details. > > This would be especially simple for webmail accounts via anonymous web proxy > (e.g. anonymizer.com) so that tracing the originating IP address would not be > helpful. And if the mail service itself did not have my real personal details > (because I wouldn't supply genuine ones) then how could anyone know who sent it? > Now, this is fairly true, but is anonymity via webmail sufficient? Spencer _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 08:14:42 2003 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 IAA08023 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 08:14:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y2yY-0001JO-Qi for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 08:14:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63CEADV005036 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 08:14:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y2yY-0001J9-MX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 08:14:10 -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 IAA08011; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 08:14:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y2yX-0005fd-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 08:14:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y2yX-0005fa-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 08:14:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y2yO-0001HE-U5; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 08:14:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y2xY-0001Gj-8o for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 08:13:12 -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 IAA07999 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 08:13:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y2xX-0005ez-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 08:13:07 -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 19Y2xW-0005eq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 08:13:06 -0400 Received: (qmail 1441 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2003 12:12:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO startechgroup.co.uk) (10.2.100.90) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 2 Jul 2003 12:12:59 -0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Forbes: Pay up Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: , ASRG , To: "Roy S. Walker" From: Matt In-Reply-To: <200307022320.h62NKgxB027562@imta.advascan.com> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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, 3 Jul 2003 13:13:04 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thursday, Jul 3, 2003, at 00:46 Europe/London, Roy S. Walker wrote: > "Charge the sender" was discussed yesterday at the famous 'spam > summit' at the house of commons in > the UK. View seems to be: this will further encourage the practice of > spammers to gain control of > legitimate email servers, with the intention of sending out spam from > an 'authorised' sender (the > recent piece on the BBC re British Airways as a source of spam > refers..). This idea will NOT work > in practice. Naive innocents would pick up the charge. Actually just a factual correction - the article was slightly misleading. The spam came direct from super-zonda, it was the web site that was being proxied through BA-Travel's web site. Your point remains though. Solve the problem of email forgery (which is required for the "charge for email" model) and you've solved the spam problem (or at the very least we can go back to just using blocklists). Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 08:57:36 2003 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 IAA09287 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 08:57:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y3e6-00030P-Vi for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 08:57:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63Cv6nF011549 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 08:57:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y3e6-00030C-Rq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 08:57:06 -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 IAA09268; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 08:57:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y3e5-00062b-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 08:57:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y3e4-00062Y-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 08:57:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y3e1-0002yB-CZ; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 08:57:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y3dk-0002xz-Aa for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 08:56:44 -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 IAA09257 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 08:56:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y3di-00062O-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 08:56:42 -0400 Received: from bill.lut.ac.uk ([158.125.1.193]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y3dh-00062L-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 08:56:42 -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 19Y3dg-0006Cm-QN; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:56:40 +0100 Received: from [158.125.1.123] (helo=bod.lut.ac.uk) by studentpop1.lboro.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 19Y3dg-0001tr-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:56:40 +0100 Received: from apache by bod.lut.ac.uk with local (Exim 4.12) id 19Y3dg-0003jg-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:56:40 +0100 To: Spencer Dawkins Subject: Re: [Asrg] Maintaining Anonymity in an Authenticated System Message-ID: <1057237000.3f042808b5ac4@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> From: Andrew Akehurst Cc: asrg@ietf.org References: <1057231407.3f04122febaa2@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> <061701c34159$4f2bc830$0200a8c0@DFNJGL21> In-Reply-To: <061701c34159$4f2bc830$0200a8c0@DFNJGL21> 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/) *19Y3dg-0006Cm-QN*qRNqvPEvaV6* X-Lboro-Filtered: bill.lut.ac.uk, Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:56:41 +0100 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, 03 Jul 2003 12:56:40 +0000 (GMT) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Quoting Spencer Dawkins : > [deleted down to] > > > > > > >Anonymous transmission is indeed a feature of our current systems, > > >not a bug. Any new system or authentication layer on top of what > > >already exists needs to maintain that. >> As I understand it, most of the proposals of that nature are about >> tying messages to a specific e-mail address. Just because you can trace a >> message back to a certain address does not necessarily mean you can >> identify the human being who sent it. > Ya know, I understand what you're saying, but (1) we're going > through an IPv6 exercise to say "well, maybe MAC addresses > are too closely tied to people to use them as part of > autoconfigured IPv6 addresses" That's an interesting point in itself. Tracing a MAC address (or an IPv6 address derived from one) could allow an eavesdropper to trace traffic from multiple connection sessions (over a period of time) back to a single network interface. Of course there still isn't necessarily a one-to-one mapping between a network interface and a human being. NAT gateways can hide many machines and people behind them, and of course even a single machine may have multiple people who log on and use it. The shortage of IPv4 addresses has lead to mechanisms like DHCP and NAT, both of which can provide limited levels of privacy... This issue intrigues me a lot but I won't say too much else about it here for fear of getting wildly off- topic. > (2) for most users of > personal computers, saying "someone else must have broken > into my house and sent all this child porn from my PC" has not > been observed to work very well, and (3) in order to say > "IP addresses != people", you would need dynamic IP > addresses that don't tie to NAIs, etc. - I believe all the IP > addresses I use for POP3/SMTP can be traced back to > me pretty easily... if I was a charter member of al Queda > I'd be more motivated to hide, but I don't think anonymous > POP3/SMTP is as easy as you're making it sound. Well, maybe I glibly made it sound easy. My example deliberately bypassed the need for POP3 by using a webmail interface to access a mailbox that way. My point was simply that, whatever new e-mail system is developed in future, if access to it can be proxied in some way (via a web interface or otherwise) then IP address tracing would turn up at a dead end. We should of course consider privacy as a requirement, but one needn't define it as an explicit part of a new e-mail system provided some external anonymity protection method is compatible with it - or at least new ideas shouldn't preclude some kind of anonymity even if they don't actually define a mechanism for it. > By "anonymous", I'm talking about two-way communication - > more than just sending an e-mail from Bill Gates saying "I'm > really excited about this quarter's earnings prospects". Simple > forgery is, of course, a variant of one-way anonymous communication. That's a good reminder, thanks for that. OK, suppose there were a tracked, secure version of Hotmail (say) whose messages could always be traced back to my Hotmail e-mail address, I could still use an anonymous web proxy service to both send and receive messages on that account. That way, if I sent spam, my account could still be closed by MSN for violation of their abuse policy. But anyone with a personal or political grudge against me would not be able to trace the e-mail address to me as an individual. Would that work? (Once again I assume that I would lie to Hotmail about any personal details they ask for, since it would be difficult for them to check at the time of sign-up) I do take your point about the ease of setting this up. However it would create a nice market for companies to provide proxying to common webmail services. They could let me log in at their website and proxy on my behalf to Hotmail (or whoever), passing the results back to my browser. To average Joe Public it could be made very easy to use by being almost totally transparent and it would make a nice business opportunity for companies to rent such services to people. > Now, this is fairly true, but is anonymity via webmail sufficient? It's difficult to say. On the technical side, with only access to the IP address of my proxy and my message itself it might still be possible to identify me by my apparent relationship with those I contact. Then again, it might still be possible to do so if I wrote a letter to someone. If I were really paranoid I'd use something like public key cryptography and send my messages that way. Whether webmail companies would provide that service for free is another matter. Certainly having a protocol which sends e-mail over encrypted connections between MTAs might help stop eavesdroppers en route from intercepting my message. The technology to do that is readily available. One issue is that if courts could order anonymiser services to surrender their logs then that might be a problem. However jurisdiction would likely rest with the country in which the server is based. Indeed, some countries might do a nice trade in off-shore privacy proxies (just as Switzerland does with banking privacy). I'm not a lawyer however, so I'll leave it to the legal experts to determine the risks of that one. Is any of this helpful? Personally I'll always be paranoid about communications privacy, but I happen to believe that low-level paranoia is a survival skill. :- ) Andrew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 10:18:59 2003 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 KAA13024 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:18:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y4uu-0005aI-7g for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:18:32 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63EIWQI021460 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:18:32 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y4uu-0005a3-3O for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:18:32 -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 KAA13011; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:18:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y4ur-0006ys-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:18:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y4ur-0006yp-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:18:29 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y4uQ-0005XM-2v; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:18:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y4ta-0005WL-8h for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:17:10 -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 KAA12892 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:17:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y4tY-0006xC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:17:08 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y4tX-0006x7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:17:07 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19Y4tU-0001vJ-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:17:04 +0100 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: RE: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within consent paradigm To: "Tom Thomson" 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: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:17:04 +0100 > One trouble here is that one moment you write "does not want" and at > another > you write "does not consent to" just as if they meant the same thing. > They > do not mean the same thing. > > I consent to receiving bills from the people who supply my electricty, > but I > don't want to receive those bills - I'd much rather have the electricity > free. I don't think those bills are spam - in fact I believe that any > definition of spam that includes those bills is just plain wrong. So spam What are you on? Ar you talking about your electricity or your electricity bills? Of course you "want" (need or desire) your electricity bills, given that your electricity *isn't* free. Otherwise the first thing you'd know is that you get a court summons for non-payment. You "consent" (express a willingness) to receive them when you sign up with your supplier, because you need them. What you "want" is a dictionary. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 10:44:35 2003 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 KAA13899 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:44:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y5Jf-000745-TI for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:44:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63Ei7Kh027153 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:44:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y5Jf-00073s-PH for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:44:07 -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 KAA13875; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:44:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y5Jd-0007Nc-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:44:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y5Jc-0007NZ-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:44:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y5JZ-00071r-IS; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:44:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y5J2-00070w-Dd for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:43:28 -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 KAA13846 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:43:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y5J0-0007Mw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:43:26 -0400 Received: from 205-158-62-67.outblaze.com ([205.158.62.67] helo=spf13.us4.outblaze.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y5Iz-0007MN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:43:25 -0400 Received: from 205-158-62-68.outblaze.com (205-158-62-68.outblaze.com [205.158.62.68]) by spf13.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with QMQP id DD0401825F18 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:42:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: (qmail 46111 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2003 14:42:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ws1-8.us4.outblaze.com) (205.158.62.59) by 205-158-62-153.outblaze.com with SMTP; 3 Jul 2003 14:42:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 87942 invoked by uid 1001); 3 Jul 2003 14:42:31 -0000 Message-ID: <20030703144231.87941.qmail@mail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.41 (Entity 5.404) Received: from [195.11.247.14] by ws1-8.us4.outblaze.com with http for hondin.degoot@programmer.net; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 09:42:31 -0500 From: "Hondin de Goot" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fourth Response X-Originating-Ip: 195.11.247.14 X-Originating-Server: ws1-8.us4.outblaze.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, 03 Jul 2003 09:42:31 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark McCarron responded: > > Why not actually join the debate on 'GIEIS' instead of posting > > subject matters that have nothing to do with this group? > > OK: > > Mark's Response: > > Thankyou. And - just for you - a final final followup: > The only reason why "spam" is a TECHNICAL NETWORKING > problem is because it is almost cost-free to the SENDER. > > Mark's Response: > > This is not entirely accurate. Spam is the direct result in failures > of design in the SMTP protocol. You hope. It is entirely accurate: spam is FACILITATED by the lack of adequate financial tracking mechanisms within either the TCP/IP or SMTP packet/header structures, an omission presumably arising from the fact that the designers were as remote from an understanding of economics as it exists in the actual marketplace as you are, but it is not otherwise causually related to the design of SMTP. Had usable financial tracking mechanisms existed, both you and the spammers would - everyday business being what it is - be paying for the electronic mail you send exactly as you pay for the telephone calls you make, often over the same packet switched networks (and as was the case with GTE Telemail, etc, prior to the deployment of Internet technology) and spam would not be the technical networking problem it is. Telephone marketing is a significant social problem as the recent takeup of the new optout facility in the USA has demonstrated, but it is not a technical networking problem because it is regulated by caller charges. The only reason why spam is a technical networking problem is because it costs asses nothing to relieve themselves. > (1) In the short to medium term > > Devise a method of reasonably reliably identifying bulk spam, > UCE or UBE and levying a charge on the senders (via any of their > upstream carriers, financial pain having the properties that it > does) which approaches that of any other method of commercial > or non-private bulk message delivery and most of the TECHNICAL > NETWORKING problems associated with spam - which are almost > entirely due intractable volumes of traffic - would rapidly > disappear. > > Mark's Response: > > The problem with this suggestion is that spammers are difficult to > trace and even when traced there lacks the proper legal frameworks > to do much about it. Spammers are only difficult to trace because there has been, until recently, little incentive to trace them and no sanctions placed on any injection points (which certainly can do most of the necessary tracing if well configured) for failure to do so. As I was suggesting an industry solution based on current methodology, why are you rabbitting on about legal frameworks for any other reason than, because of basic lack of knowledge about the actual operation of the Internet business, you have not even begun to grasp what I wrote? The reason why mixed-ability classes proceed so slowly is because the speed of understanding is limited by the slowness of the dumbest or least knowedgeable student. Every detail must be (re)explained. Shorthand discussion based on prior knowledge from earlier classes and shared experience is unavailable. > Spam is a direct result of a basic topology flaw of the internet. What you refer to as a basic topology flaw is the sole reason why why have the Internet now and not ISO-OSInet RSN. The Internet has flourished, and every day continues to maintain connectivity, only because of its most basic and overarching technical design principle, one which is so fundamentally undermined by every single aspect of your ever-expanding solipsism that it is clear you have not grasped even the shadow of an understanding of it. Your ignorance is profound. > A reformulation of the SMTP protocol and implementation to the market > place could be completed within 3 years. [...] You practically have > a step by step guide with 'GIEIS'. Does the vowel in "GIEIS" rhyme with "fleece" or with "scheisse"? Or is it a diphthong, combining both? > With a sheet of paper, a pen, a postage stamp, an envelope > and a public mail box it is possible to send an anonymous > letter, lawful or otherwise, on any subject, to any person, > institution or business behind a physical mail box. [...] > > I think you are forgeting another aspect of email, that is, it can be > encrypted. Just because they can identfy which account the information > came from, does not mean they can read its contents. It is clear that I am remembering a great deal more about the nature of anonymity than you have ever learned. Just what, however is for me and many others reading here to know and you to find out. > This is how current anti-spam systems work and I do not see any mass > public outcry about it. What anti-spam systems? When I look around my MTA, I see no anti-spam systems, and were I to discover that the nice people who handle my MX when the network here is down were to have instituted any on my behalf, I would have their guts for a Beethoven sonata. > Also, as I have pointed out before, governments across the world > have super-computers dedicated to surveillance. Governments we have to live with. Many ego-driven simpletons, eminently corruptible in their arrogance, we are still able to avoid. > It is worth addressing. A port scan only tests for basic security and > access to a system. It is hardly a physical assault, also, coming from > a trusted domain everyone would be quite aware it was not a breach > attempt on their systems. Since these scans would be sent clear text > across the web ^^^ Uh huh. > Although Usenet is now largely (but, even yet, by any means / Sorry, missed a "not" ----------------------------- > entirely) transported via NNTP, it is no part of the remit of a TECHNICAL NETWORKING group, only loosely associated with only one of its transmission protocols, to attempt to control its content in any way other than from within Usenet's own already well-established and effective control structures. > It is part of this remit. The remit of this group relates to spam, not > specific protocols. Spam is an issue that affects the NNTP protocol s > well. NNTP has the same flaws in security as SMTP. You seem to have a difficulty, perhaps dyslexic in nature, with the differences between the SMTP and NNTP protocols. Let me give you a clue: it is signalled in the first two letters of each acronym. But, admittedly, that is only a detail given that you clearly have no idea of the far more fundamental difference between Usenet and NNTP. > Newsgroups are flooded with spam, Usenet's current procedures have > proved ineffective. If newsgroups are flooded with spam then that indicates only a lack of interest in using its well-established and effective control structures to prevent such. > 'GIEIS' would only assist with companies establsihing credibility > on the internet. All companys would have to be 'GIEIS' registered > and that requires being a legitimate registered company. 'GIEIS' > under the 'CAA' system (details will be released in the next few > days) would be able to retrieve company information, past complaints, > and a complaints procedure system. Another feature of the system, is > that it would be able to confirm emails were sent by employees from > any company. > > 'CAA' will be part of the 'Internet Better Business Guild' that will > be lead by 'GIEIS'. All companies that pass 'GIEIS' checks will be > awarded a reference number. This will also take the form of a link > that will appear in a small graphic on their website. This will lead > directly to 'GIEIS' online reporting system and list extensive details > on the company including previous complaints and resolutions with > customers. > > This would virtually eliminate fraudulent business on the Internet. On the one hand, you really are full of crap, but on the other, I have to admit that you have an impressive knowledge of how to pile it high. > Now, where's that unsubscribe button? Ah, here i > > > Mark's Response: > > That is one way of putting it, but I don't see anything here that > demonstrates that you are able to bypass my system. > > Mark McCarron. > > _________________________________________________________________ > On the move? Get Hotmail on your mobile phone Sorry, I don't have a mobile phone. Now let's try that button aga -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search http://corp.mail.com/careers _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 10:45:36 2003 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 KAA13947 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:45:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y5KZ-0007GQ-3g for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:45:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63Ej3WH027918 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:45:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y5KZ-0007GD-0t for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:45:03 -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 KAA13940; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:44:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y5KW-0007Or-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:45:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y5KW-0007Oo-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:45:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y5KX-00079x-FZ; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:45:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y5KJ-00079E-Vo for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 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 KAA13919 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:44:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y5KG-0007OF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:44:44 -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 19Y5KF-0007O6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:44:43 -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 19Y5Ja-0003K9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:44:02 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 03 Jul 2003 06:59:23 EDT." <20030703065923.A2063@m433> 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, 03 Jul 2003 10:44:02 -0400 Walter Dnes wrote: > In late December, I got an account at clss.net that allows end-users > to set up individual blocklist selections and whitelists. Processing > takes place just after RCPT:, and rejections consist of the big 550, not > the mailbombing of innocent 3rd-parties that have been forged as the > "From:" address. In the past few weeks, I've started receiving a number of such idiot bounces every day, to all of my public email addresses. > My spam count on this account has gone down from multiple spams per > day to multiple days between spams. Wonderful. Does this work for AOL? Nortel? Hotmail? Striker? Not really. (Or, not without substantial cost.) And what do you do when the spam load goes up by a factor of 10, as it will? If such a solution could get rid of the vast majority of spam, then we wouldn't need ASRG. But it can't, and it won't scale to the future. As previous discussions on ASRG have shown, the amount of spam can increase by a factor of 10 to 100, before it starts to dominate the network. > As far as I'm concerned, my problem has been almost 100% cured. Then why are you not asking for ASRG to be disbanded? > That cure is available to others. If it's a general solution, then ASRG is not needed, and you should ask the IRTF to disband it. If you're not going to do that, then I'm confused as to why you're here. > If you've got minor cuts, bandaids *ARE* the appropriate solution. Did you read *any* of my messages about the spam problem at my striker.ottawa.on.ca domain? I heard opinions like yours over 3 years ago. "Striker is unusual, my spam load is managable, the spam problem of Striker will never happen to me." Now, 3 years later, the *same* people are on record as complaining about their spam load, and that something needs to be done. They're getting the spam traffic today that I was getting THREE YEARS ago. And their attitude is still "Striker is unusual, it won't happen to me." Do these people have any intention of learning from history? If ASRG had started up 3 years ago, we might have had a workable solution by now. > Some of the suggested cures are worse than the disease. Since we're on > this patient-doctor analogy, let me remind you of Hippocrates' > admonition "First, do no harm". I'm willing to endure short-term pain > for long-term gain, but I do want improvement that makes it worthwhile. Fine. I'll point my MX at some IP you control. After the box falls over, your ISP will call, and ask for more money for the gigabytes of bandwidth usage. And you're telling me that filtering after RCTP TO's is a solution? By all means... wait 3 years, and it won't be. That's why we needed ASRG 3 years ago, and that's why we need it today. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 10:51:38 2003 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 KAA14140 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:51:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y5QO-0007OS-Dp for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:51:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63Ep4MG028414 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:51:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y5QO-0007OD-Al for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:51:04 -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 KAA14121; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:51:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y5QL-0007Tg-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:51:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y5QL-0007Td-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:51:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y5QL-0007LC-4P; Thu, 03 Jul 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 19Y5Pu-0007Ky-Ir for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:50:34 -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 KAA14112 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:50:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y5Ps-0007TK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:50:32 -0400 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y5Pr-0007TG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:50:31 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h63EoU2Q025835; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:50:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:50:30 -0700 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D22B6@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Esa Laitinen'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fourth Response 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: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:50:27 -0700 I seem to remember that excessive port scanning was one of the issues that was litigated in the new Zealand ORBS cases. I tried to read the GIEIS paper and I cannot understand what the proposal is, what it is trying to achieve or what the prospect of a reduction in spam as a result would be. Statements that 'intellectual copyright' is reserved do not lend confidence, I am not aware of any such concept in US or international copyright law. Copyright protects the embodiment of an idea, never the idea itself. Even the EU doctrine of moral right of the author does not cover this. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Esa Laitinen [mailto:esa@laitinen.org] > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 2:14 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fourth Response > > > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:28:51AM +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: > > It is worth addressing. A port scan only tests for basic > security and > > access to a system. It is hardly a physical assault, also, > coming from a > > trusted domain everyone would be quite aware it was not a > breach attempt on > > their systems. Since these scans would be sent clear text > across the web > > anyone with a little knowledge could analyse them. If > there was anything > > suspisious it would be repoted instantly all over the world. > > Nevertheless port scanning is illegal in some parts of the > world, with > convictions to back the claim (decision of Finnish Supreme > Court, case > number KKO:2003:36). > > Welcome to Finland after you've started your large scale scanning ;-) > > -- > PGP Fingerprint: 8C4D 4F5C 1094 5E00 D575 11B2 9412 AD93 7F78 EF7E > Public key at: http://iki.fi/laitinen/pubkey.html > YIM: reunaesa ICQ: 160631289 AIM: punkkinen MSN: esahi5@hotmail.com > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 11:00:31 2003 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 LAA14560 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 11:00:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y5Z6-0007ey-Oz for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:00:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63F04Nc029438 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 11:00:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y5Z6-0007ej-Ko for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:00:04 -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 LAA14522; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 11:00:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y5Z3-0007c0-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:00:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y5Z3-0007bx-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:00:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y5Z2-0007cd-UG; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:00:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y5Yk-0007bg-Ox for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:59:42 -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 KAA14472 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:59:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y5Yi-0007b7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:59:40 -0400 Received: from bay2-f134.bay2.hotmail.com ([65.54.247.134] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y5Yh-0007an-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:59:39 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:30:40 -0700 Received: from 192.85.16.3 by by2fd.bay2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:30:40 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] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam ........ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2003 14:30:40.0966 (UTC) FILETIME=[ADCE4E60:01C3416F] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 03 Jul 2003 12:30:40 -0200 Bob Wyman wrote: >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >>spam = "any email that does not have consent from the receiver" >I don't think so... >It may be hard to define "spam" but that doesn't mean that we .... >For instance, a message from an ex-boy/girlfriend might be >unwanted but wouldn't normally pass the "smell test" for what is spam. ...... >It would be convenient if we had a nice, tight, broadly accepted >definition of spam. However, I think we need to give up on even trying Why don't make it easy and go back to the definition used when the Green Card-lawyers and Spamford started it. Commercial mail from senders you have had no contact with = spam Commercial mail from senders you have had contact with = e-ads (does not mean you want it) Commercial mail from senders you have had contact with, expected = legal Non-commercial mail from senders you have had no contact with, without a purpose = DDoS Non-commercial mail from senders you have had no contact with a purpose = legal Non-commercial mail from senders you have had contact with, but don't want have from = just annoying Remember also that commercial do not mean it originate from a legal entity. By narrowing the definition, it get's easier to handle and to find a base line from where we can go further. Reason for the classification, is that I never seen a spam, that doesn't seem to have a (real or bogus) commercial message in it. Even those labeled as DDoS seem to have, though illegible, but still a form for commercial message. And we're back to the issue of the content and what is "relevant" of it. Kurt Magnusson _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 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 Thu Jul 3 11:33:38 2003 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 LAA17181 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 11:33:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y653-00029p-20 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:33:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63FX56b008284 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 11:33:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y652-00029O-UF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:33:04 -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 LAA16995; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 11:33:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y651-0000NA-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:33:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y650-0000N4-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:33:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y641-0001qW-UM; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:32:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y63r-0001lX-F4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:31:51 -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 LAA16598 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 11:31:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y63q-0000Jt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:31:50 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y63p-0000Ik-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:31:49 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:30:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 11:19:06 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating 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: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 11:19:05 -0400 > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@freeradius.org] > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 10:44 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating > > > Walter Dnes wrote: > > In late December, I got an account at clss.net that > allows end-users > > to set up individual blocklist selections and whitelists. > Processing > > takes place just after RCPT:, and rejections consist of the > big 550, > > not the mailbombing of innocent 3rd-parties that have been > forged as > > the "From:" address. > > In the past few weeks, I've started receiving a number of > such idiot bounces every day, to all of my public email addresses. > > > My spam count on this account has gone down from multiple spams per > > day to multiple days between spams. > > Wonderful. Does this work for AOL? Nortel? Hotmail? Striker? > > Not really. (Or, not without substantial cost.) And what > do you do when the spam load goes up by a factor of 10, as it will? > > If such a solution could get rid of the vast majority of > spam, then we wouldn't need ASRG. But it can't, and it won't > scale to the future. As previous discussions on ASRG have > shown, the amount of spam can increase by a factor of 10 to > 100, before it starts to dominate the network. I did not see his message suggesting that this was a solution to the 'global problem' of spam. I do think that this is an interesting perspective on the differences between various spam responses. This is closely related to the conversation around giving temporary failures to suspect messages. Of course, in all of this there is place for the counter-argument that this describes spammers' current behavior and that behavior can change. I do not think this should stop us from at least gaining an understanding of it. With all of this, we must understand the assumptions that the proposal is based upon and consider the effect of changes in those conditions. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 11:50:24 2003 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 LAA19059 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 11:50:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y6LL-0004E2-0V for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:49:55 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63Fns0i016236 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 11:49:54 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y6LK-0004Dn-Tf for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:49:54 -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 LAA18995; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 11:49:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y6KT-0004AR-BG; Thu, 03 Jul 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 19Y6KB-00049x-Kr for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:48:43 -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 LAA18927 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 11:48:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y6KA-0000xI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:48:42 -0400 Received: from bay8-f33.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.33] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y6K9-0000w8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:48:41 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 08:48:05 -0700 Received: from 62.252.128.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:48:05 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: 03 Jul 2003 15:48:05.0933 (UTC) FILETIME=[7E6C05D0:01C3417A] Subject: [Asrg] Re: The Solution To Spam - The First Response (Ken Hirsch) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 03 Jul 2003 15:48:05 +0000 This posting relates to the 'GIEIS' system. This can be viewed at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis I must agree with Ken. It only makes sense to raise the current pricing schemes to remove illigitimate companies from the Internet, leaving only those with significant investments in the web business free to win back public support. By rasing the 'bar' of initial expenditure verus return we could eliminate a significant porportion of Internet fraud. 'GIEIS' will employ this technique as well as others. Mark McCarron. >Message: 9 >From: "Ken Hirsch" >To: >Subject: Re: [Asrg] The Solution To Spam - The First Response >Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:40:38 -0400 > >From: "Kee Hinckley" > > This list has had this type of discussion before. Those are > > approximately the requirements necessary for an SSL certificate. > > SSL certificates currently last one year at about $100/cert. The > > margins are such that virtually no background checks are done. And > > of course there is no revocation, arbitration or verification done > > for how you use it afterwards. I would guess that, at a minimum, > > the level of support you are requesting would result in a fee on the > > order of $1000/year in order to support the necessary infrastructure > > and support needs. It might be somewhat lower because the volume of > > sales would be many orders of magnitude higher than SSL certs, but I > > can't see it being any cheaper. > >You say that like it's a bad thing. If it would reduce the number of >SMTP servers by one or two orders of magnitude, that's great! Perhaps >I should remind you that your own (reasonably priced) service is >$36/year per user. A $1000 would cover 28 people. I should hope the >average SMTP server services more people than that! > >But your assertion does not really check out. The extra cost for >identify verification should be on the order of $100 for the first >year and maybe $30 extra per renewal. > >For example, the cost of a passport application is $55 for the State >Department and $30 to the acceptance facility (usually the post >office). The USPS just announced the availability of a service for >CAs to check identities in person. I'm sure the cost will be >comparable to the $30 that they get for passport applications. > >Or, my bank will do it for free for their customers, and there is a CA >(digitrust.com) that is associated with the American Banking >Association. Their charge is $175 for a business identification or >SSL certificate. > >And why should it cost more? For the first time, somebody needs to >process the application, run a credit check, check ID against >databases. In time (<1 hour) and fees (e.g. $25 for a credit report), that >should be less than a $100. For a renewal, a good practice would be a >credit check (to see if there's anything really fishy) and mailing the >renewal code to the address to see if it's still good. An extra $30? > >So, how much do CAs charge for code-signing certificates, which should >be comparable? The most expensive is Verisign, which is $400 the >first year and $300 for renewals. Others are half that. > >Right now the PKI is weak on certificate revocation, but that's not >strictly necessary. Third parties can label a given identity as a >spammer, just as they do for IP addresses. > >In fact the PKI as it stands is adequate for identify verification, at >least in the United States, but as I indicated in earlier messages, >that's not quite enough to prevent spam. You also need (at least) the >property that there are not too many certificates per person (although >the cost does put some limit on it.) > >PKI provides > certificate => identity >but not yet > identity => few certificates > >Note that IP addresses and domain names provide neither property. > > _________________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Jul 3 12:29:10 2003 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 MAA22032 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:29:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y6ws-0006Vc-1f for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:28:42 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63GSgDM025016 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:28:42 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y6wr-0006VP-U1 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:28:41 -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 MAA21970; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:28:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y6wq-00029N-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:28:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y6wp-00029J-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:28:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y6wD-0006S5-4j; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:28:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y6vq-0006Rf-IH for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:27:38 -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 MAA21881 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:27:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y6vp-00027C-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:27:37 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y6vn-00025p-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:27:36 -0400 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2003070316270101200i9rcve>; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:27:01 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (unknown [10.0.0.108]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC9C957AB for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:34:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F045952.7090909@zemos.net> From: Philip Miller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: The Solution To Spam - The First Response (Ken Hirsch) 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: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:26:58 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark McCarron wrote: > I must agree with Ken. It only makes sense to raise the current > pricing schemes to remove illegitimate companies from the Internet, > leaving only those with significant investments in the web business > free to win back public support. > > By rasing the 'bar' of initial expenditure verus return we could > eliminate a significant porportion of Internet fraud. 'GIEIS' will > employ this technique as well as others. But how do we accomplish this without eliminating all free enterprise on the Internet, where anyone with access can establish themselves as a meaningful entity, rather than turning the Internet into what exists now in broadcast television, where viewers are wholly passive entities with no direct influence on the medium? The bottom line is that requiring business registration creates a much higher hurdle for starting new online businesses, and this is unacceptable, seeing what the existing freedom on the Internet has given the world aside from spam. -- Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 12:38:43 2003 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 MAA22880 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:38:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y766-0007BH-Ow for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:38:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63GcEme027602 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:38:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y766-0007B6-LY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:38:14 -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 MAA22849; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:38:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y765-0002VF-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:38:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y764-0002VB-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:38:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y75t-00075d-8m; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:38:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y75B-0006us-Jf for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:37:17 -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 MAA22773 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:37:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y759-0002Tv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:37:16 -0400 Received: from host217-35-105-169.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.105.169] helo=mail.neosinteractive.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y758-0002Tj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:37:15 -0400 Received: from tthomson ([217.35.105.173] unverified) by mail.neosinteractive.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:43:36 +0100 From: "Tom Thomson" To: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" Subject: RE: RE: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within consent paradigm 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 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2003 16:43:36.0429 (UTC) FILETIME=[3F8D61D0:01C34182] 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, 3 Jul 2003 17:37:13 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "What are you on" is not a useful question to post on this list. I'll risk Paul's wrath and reply in the same unhelpful vein as you have adopted:- I guess if you don't understand that there is a very clear distinction between wanting something and consenting to it we will all do better to ignore anything you say about the consent model for spam/spam control/spam elimination, because you are clearly on something that has reduced your ability to distinguish basic semantic concepts to the point where you can't usefully communicate. Tom -----Original Message----- From: Jon Kyme [mailto:jrk@merseymail.com] Sent: 03 July 2003 15:17 To: Tom Thomson Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: RE: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within consent paradigm > One trouble here is that one moment you write "does not want" and at > another > you write "does not consent to" just as if they meant the same thing. > They > do not mean the same thing. > > I consent to receiving bills from the people who supply my electricty, > but I > don't want to receive those bills - I'd much rather have the electricity > free. I don't think those bills are spam - in fact I believe that any > definition of spam that includes those bills is just plain wrong. So spam What are you on? Ar you talking about your electricity or your electricity bills? Of course you "want" (need or desire) your electricity bills, given that your electricity *isn't* free. Otherwise the first thing you'd know is that you get a court summons for non-payment. You "consent" (express a willingness) to receive them when you sign up with your supplier, because you need them. What you "want" is a dictionary. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 12:44:36 2003 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 MAA23308 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:44:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y7Bo-0007T3-Ce for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:44:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63Gi87n028699 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:44:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y7Bo-0007So-8O for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:44:08 -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 MAA23234; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:44:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y7Bm-0002en-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:44:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y7Bm-0002ek-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:44:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y7Bh-0007Qq-9O; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:44:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y7BA-0007QA-1O for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:43:28 -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 MAA23179 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:43:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y7B8-0002d5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:43:26 -0400 Received: from law9-oe32.law9.hotmail.com ([64.4.8.89] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y7B7-0002as-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:43:25 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 09:42:54 -0700 Received: from 12.145.89.10 by law9-oe32.law9.hotmail.com with DAV; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:42:54 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [12.145.89.10] X-Originating-Email: [khirsch314159@hotmail.com] From: "Ken Hirsch" To: "ASRG" References: <3F045952.7090909@zemos.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: The Solution To Spam - The First Response (Ken Hirsch) 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 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2003 16:42:54.0904 (UTC) FILETIME=[26CD2B80:01C34182] 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, 3 Jul 2003 12:43:10 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Philip Miller" > > By rasing the 'bar' of initial expenditure verus return we could > > eliminate a significant porportion of Internet fraud. 'GIEIS' will > > employ this technique as well as others. > > But how do we accomplish this without eliminating all free enterprise on > the Internet, where anyone with access can establish themselves as a > meaningful entity, rather than turning the Internet into what exists now > in broadcast television, where viewers are wholly passive entities with > no direct influence on the medium? > The bottom line is that requiring business registration creates a much > higher hurdle for starting new online businesses, and this is > unacceptable, seeing what the existing freedom on the Internet has given > the world aside from spam. I have only proposed registering SMTP servers. The extra cost would be on the order of $200 per year. If you can't afford that, use somebody else's SMTP server, as most people already do. This is not a significant barrier to entry. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 12:58:38 2003 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 MAA24574 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:58:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y7PO-0007wP-C3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:58:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63GwAsX030520 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:58:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y7PO-0007wB-8u for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:58:10 -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 MAA24563; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:58:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y7PM-0003CG-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:58:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y7PL-0003CD-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:58:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y7PF-0007tB-H1; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:58:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y7P0-0007sh-Qh for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:57:46 -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 MAA24558 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:57:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y7Oz-0003C7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:57:45 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=mr10.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y7Oy-0003C4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:57:44 -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 ACH16071; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:57:38 -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 AKA04481; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:57:36 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Barry Shein'" , "'Yakov Shafranovich'" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within consent paradigm Message-ID: <002001c34184$375769f0$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: <16131.32702.114682.219965@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, 3 Jul 2003 12:57:41 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Barry Shein wrote: > Although reasonable-sounding these descriptions [of consent]=20 > are starting to remind me of those long-ago Artificial Intelligence=20 > seminars where you'd get to ponder why some seemingly simple=20 > human behavior was so difficult to code into a program.=20 We've had precisely the same issue with software licensing or Digital Rights Management for years. The issue is one of managing expectations. The reality is that machines can only manage things they can detect yet people will often express their rules in terms that involve things that machines can't detect. For instance, people will often say that they only want mail from some specific user yet the machine can't detect identity. The machine can only detect the use of things which are assumed to indicate identity. (i.e. When if someone says "Only Bob can send mail" what the machine needs to hear is "Only someone using Bob's private key can send mail." For a person, "identity" is an attribute of being. For the computer, identity is a property which is assumed belong to users of certain proofs of identity.=20 But, this is all getting a bit philosophical. Barry has a point. As we get into dealing with the issues of expressing and managing consent, we must all be careful to ensure that people understand the inherent limitations of machines in this realm. There is only so much that the machine can do for you. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 13:37:50 2003 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 NAA27364 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:37:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y81J-00012z-Nh for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:37:21 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63HbLUk004019 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:37:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y81J-00012c-Hd for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:37:21 -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 NAA27325; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:37:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y81H-0004UM-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:37:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y81G-0004UJ-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:37:18 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y80z-0000sx-MB; Thu, 03 Jul 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 19Y80H-0000r7-92 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:36:17 -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 NAA27235 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:36:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y80F-0004S8-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:36:15 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=mr10.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y80E-0004S3-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:36:14 -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 ACH20399; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:36:05 -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 AKA12188; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:36:03 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Selby Hatch'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Nothing will stop spam??? Message-ID: <002401c34189$96516eb0$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: <3F03E8F5.5040107@azza.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, 3 Jul 2003 13:36:08 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Selby Hatch wrote: > We can discuss server authentication, sender accountability, > SMTP extensions, SMTP replacement, GIEIS, SPF, C/R, Reverse=20 > DNS, HTML mail blocking, greylisting, etc. forever.=20 > We need to simply require proof of consent.=20 Precisely. Excellent comment. Providing a method to explicitly express and managee consent will drastically simplify the entire problem. Fortunately, the mechanisms for accomplishing this are fairly well understood and can be deployed initially without requiring modification to fundamental protocols like SMTP and POP. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 13:38:31 2003 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 NAA27405 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:38:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y81y-0001Kb-5V for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:38:02 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63Hc2ou005068 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:38:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y81x-0001JD-Vs for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:38:02 -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 NAA27386; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:38:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y81v-0004VF-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:37:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y81v-0004VC-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:37:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y81w-0001EZ-OQ; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:38:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y816-0000vi-QQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:37:09 -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 NAA27295 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:37:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y814-0004TY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:37:06 -0400 Received: from host217-35-105-169.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.105.169] helo=mail.neosinteractive.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y813-0004TV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:37:05 -0400 Received: from tthomson ([217.35.105.173] unverified) by mail.neosinteractive.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 3 Jul 2003 18:43:27 +0100 From: "Tom Thomson" To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fourth Response 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 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D22B6@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2003 17:43:27.0022 (UTC) FILETIME=[9BB664E0:01C3418A] 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, 3 Jul 2003 18:37:04 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I seem to remember that excessive port scanning was one of the issues that > was litigated in the new Zealand ORBS cases. I think the GIEIS theory must be that the ends justify the means - even if we bring servers to a total halt while they respond to all these pointless scans, that's OK because our hearts are pure - we are only trying to reduce spam. > > I tried to read the GIEIS paper and I cannot understand what the proposal > is, what it is trying to achieve or what the prospect of a reduction in spam > as a result would be. I too looked at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis. Like you, I have little idea what is being proposed (it might have helped if it had been written by someone with at least an elementary school understanding of English spelling and grammar). Perhaps it is RMX without DNS (the distributed DNS system being replaced for this purpose by the GIEIS Central Servers), or something very similar to that, but it is not really clear. I was particularly amused by the "encrypted ID code", which I take to be invocation of the meaningless word-of-power "encrypted" rather than anything to do with encryption as understood by cryptologists. > Statements that 'intellectual copyright' is reserved do not lend confidence, > I am not aware of any such concept in US or international copyright law. I'm not at all surprised that you are not aware of something that does not exist! > Copyright protects the embodiment of an idea, never the idea itself. Even > the EU doctrine of moral right of the author does not cover this. Perhaps the distinction between Copyright and Patent is lost on the author? Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Esa Laitinen [mailto:esa@laitinen.org] > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 2:14 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fourth Response > > > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:28:51AM +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: > > It is worth addressing. A port scan only tests for basic > security and > > access to a system. It is hardly a physical assault, also, > coming from a > > trusted domain everyone would be quite aware it was not a > breach attempt on > > their systems. Since these scans would be sent clear text > across the web > > anyone with a little knowledge could analyse them. If > there was anything > > suspisious it would be repoted instantly all over the world. > > Nevertheless port scanning is illegal in some parts of the > world, with > convictions to back the claim (decision of Finnish Supreme > Court, case > number KKO:2003:36). > > Welcome to Finland after you've started your large scale scanning ;-) > > -- > PGP Fingerprint: 8C4D 4F5C 1094 5E00 D575 11B2 9412 AD93 7F78 EF7E > Public key at: http://iki.fi/laitinen/pubkey.html > YIM: reunaesa ICQ: 160631289 AIM: punkkinen MSN: esahi5@hotmail.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 Jul 3 13:44:42 2003 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 NAA27956 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:44:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y87w-0001pd-SL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:44:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63HiCip007035 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:44:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y87w-0001pO-NV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:44:12 -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 NAA27924; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:44:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y87u-0004mF-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:44:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y87t-0004mC-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:44:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y87k-0001nR-PG; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:44:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y87h-0001n3-8N for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:43:57 -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 NAA27911 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:43:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y87f-0004m1-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:43:55 -0400 Received: from mxsmta02.inithost.com ([209.235.30.104] helo=mxsmta02.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y87e-0004lx-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:43:54 -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 <20030703174153.WWHK7659.mxsmta02.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:41:53 -0400 Message-ID: <3F046B62.7060206@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: bob@wyman.us CC: "'Selby Hatch'" , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nothing will stop spam??? References: <002401c34189$96516eb0$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> In-Reply-To: <002401c34189$96516eb0$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> 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, 03 Jul 2003 13:44:02 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes...yes...yes! Bob Wyman wrote: >Selby Hatch wrote: > > >>We can discuss server authentication, sender accountability, >>SMTP extensions, SMTP replacement, GIEIS, SPF, C/R, Reverse >>DNS, HTML mail blocking, greylisting, etc. forever. >>We need to simply require proof of consent. >> >> > > Precisely. Excellent comment. Providing a method to explicitly >express and managee consent will drastically simplify the entire >problem. Fortunately, the mechanisms for accomplishing this are fairly >well understood and can be deployed initially without requiring >modification to fundamental protocols like SMTP and POP. > > bob wyman > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jul 3 13:50:34 2003 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 NAA28180 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:50:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y8Dd-00024W-Oc for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:50:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63Ho54M007958 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:50:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y8Dd-00024H-LP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:50:05 -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 NAA28147; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:50:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y8Db-0004re-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:50:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y8Da-0004rb-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:50:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y8DZ-000224-IR; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:50:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y8D7-00021U-ER for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 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 NAA28129 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:49:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y8D3-0004qu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:49:29 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y8D2-0004qI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:49:28 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:48:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:36:48 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Tom Thomson'" , "'Jon Kyme'" Cc: "'ASRG'" Subject: RE: RE: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam wi thin consent paradigm 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: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:36:46 -0400 Ok, guys. I'm sure that you both agree that the usefulness of this thread has been exhausted. > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Thomson [mailto:tthomson@neosinteractive.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:37 PM > To: Jon Kyme > Cc: ASRG > Subject: RE: RE: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - > Defining spam within consent paradigm > > > "What are you on" is not a useful question to post on this list. > > I'll risk Paul's wrath and reply in the same unhelpful vein > as you have > adopted:- > > I guess if you don't understand that there is a very clear > distinction between wanting something and consenting to it we > will all do better to ignore anything you say about the > consent model for spam/spam control/spam elimination, because > you are clearly on something that has reduced your ability to > distinguish basic semantic concepts to the point where you > can't usefully communicate. > > Tom > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Kyme [mailto:jrk@merseymail.com] > Sent: 03 July 2003 15:17 > To: Tom Thomson > Cc: ASRG > Subject: Re: RE: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - > Defining spam within consent paradigm > > > > One trouble here is that one moment you write "does not > want" and at > > another > you write "does not consent to" just as if they > meant the same thing. > They > do not mean the same thing. > > > I consent to receiving bills from the people who supply my > electricty, > but I > don't want to receive those bills - I'd > much rather have the electricity > free. I don't think those > bills are spam - in fact I believe that any > definition of > spam that includes those bills is just plain wrong. So spam > What are you on? Ar you talking about your electricity or > your electricity bills? Of course you "want" (need or > desire) your electricity bills, given that your electricity > *isn't* free. Otherwise the first thing you'd know is that > you get a court summons for non-payment. You "consent" (express a > willingness) to receive them when you sign up with your > supplier, because you need them. What you "want" is a dictionary. > > > > -- > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 3 13:55:36 2003 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 NAA28690 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:55:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y8IV-0002HS-Rp for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:55:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63Ht7W2008760 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:55:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y8IV-0002HD-N3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:55:07 -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 NAA28578; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:55:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y8IT-00058w-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:55:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y8IS-00058t-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:55:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y8IQ-0002FK-Et; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:55:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y8Hn-0002Cc-HS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:54:23 -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 NAA28520 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:54:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y8Hl-00053k-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:54:21 -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 19Y8Hk-00053a-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:54:20 -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 19Y8H2-0003MY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:53:36 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:19:05 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: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:53:36 -0400 Paul Judge wrote: > I did not see his message suggesting that this was a solution to the 'global > problem' of spam. I agree. My point was more that local band-aids help, but only for short periods of time. Everyone on ASRG should already know this. If the band-aids were *permanently* effective, then ASRG would be unnecessary. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 14:15:41 2003 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 OAA29614 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:15:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y8bt-0002wP-C8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:15:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63IF9kb011299 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:15:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y8bt-0002wA-8q for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:15:09 -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 OAA29572; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:15:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y8bq-0005uZ-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:15:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y8bq-0005uW-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:15:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y8bl-0002tg-94; Thu, 03 Jul 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 19Y8ax-0002qz-LT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:14:11 -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 OAA29442 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:14:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y8Ps-0005Jj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:02:44 -0400 Received: from mnr1.microneil.com ([216.88.36.96]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y8Pr-0005JD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:02:43 -0400 Received: by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix, from userid 93) id 560A429C065; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:02:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MicroNeil.com (mail.microneil.com [216.88.36.161]) by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1669029C032 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:02:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MNR01 [216.88.36.10] by MicroNeil.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.05) id AF7EC96B0116; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:01:34 -0400 From: "Madscientist" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within consent paradigm Message-ID: <005201c3418d$229b1990$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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 In-Reply-To: <002001c34184$375769f0$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> Importance: Normal X-Declude-Spoolname: D6f7e116.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: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:01:31 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >-----Original Message----- >From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On >Behalf Of Bob Wyman >Barry Shein wrote: >> Although reasonable-sounding these descriptions [of consent] >> are starting to remind me of those long-ago Artificial Intelligence >> seminars where you'd get to ponder why some seemingly simple >> human behavior was so difficult to code into a program. > We've had precisely the same issue with software >detect identity. The machine can only detect the use of things >which are assumed to indicate identity. (i.e. When if someone >says "Only Bob can send mail" what the machine needs to hear >is "Only someone using Bob's private key can send mail." For a >person, "identity" is an attribute of being. For the computer, >identity is a property which is assumed belong to users of >certain proofs of identity. > But, this is all getting a bit philosophical. Barry has >a point. As we get into dealing with the issues of expressing >and managing consent, we must all be careful to ensure that >people understand the inherent limitations of machines in this >realm. There is only so much that the machine can do for you. > > bob wyman There are some simple and effective mechanisms for the scenario of identifying consent, though they may not be applicable in some cases. Here is one that is not a complete solution, but is very effective and solves the problem of expectation and identification in many of the most critical scenarios (such as children and grandmothers avoiding porn spam): Simplified: 1. The recipient issues a secret code (PL code) of their choice to each of the people they wish to communicate with. 1.1. The secret code _should_ be cryptographically secure but _may_ be anything unique enough to be effective for that user's purpose. 1.2. The user in this case _may_ be broadly defined as a group of users such as a family, or a special team in a corporate environment. 2. The user filters out / rejects all messages that do not contain the secret code in the body of the message. 2.1. The secret code becomes a mechanism of explicit consent. 2.2. In some cases (such as juvinile accounts) the ability to change the code or adjust the filtering may be restricted. 3. Trusted users who receive the code may freely distribute the code to other users whom they wish to include in the group. In this way the "authority" to transmit messages to members of the group can naturally extend to appropriate senders in a "viral" manner with very little administration. 3.1. Kids will naturally share their PL code with their friends. 3.2. Parents will share/register the code with teachers and extended family members. 4. If the PL code is compromized then it can be easily changed because a new code can be generated and transmitted to everyone in the group (or at least a large collection of them). If this mechanism is automated in some way then the system can be very secure an lightweight. 5. Attempts to send to members of this group withou the appropriate code can be used to detect attempted abuse - and these statistics can be used to drive other mechanisms such as black lists or statisitical training systems. This mechanism can be implemented right now and is extremely effective. The user's expectations are precise: If someone has the code I can hear from them. If they do not have the code I should not hear from them. The system's responses are precise: If the code exists then the message passes, if it does not then the message does not pass. (The PL code may be implemented with stronger controls such as placement in specific message headers or other specific rules, however it generally works well when simply included in the body of the message like a signature or some kind of "inside joke"). The system is extremely secure because anonymous senders are not generally able to extract or guess these PL codes and if they do then the codes are easily changed. The system can be extended to support legitimate mailing lists because special codes can be provided to the mailing list author at the time of subscription by the subscriber as part of the normal customization data provided by the user. One variant of this is to subscribe to the list using a cryptographic alias that can be turned off if it is ever abused. A more secure implementation would require the author of the list to include the code provided as part of the customized portion of the subscriber's messages (customization is often the norm these days anyway such as including the subscriber's name and so forth). This mechanism naturally extends a COT model (Circle Of Trust) because is a good example of that paradigm. COT systems provide for effective, lightweight authentication mechanisms without a centralized authority. This mechanism is not proprietary, not centrally controlled, represents very little cost, and does not preclude any other mechanisms that might also be enforced as part of a local policy. Extended implementation example: The mechanism can also be aggregated and driven forward within the systems of a given provider such that individual users might register their authorized codes with the provider (using some standardized format established by the provider), those codes could then be aggregated into a hash table, and message content reaching a border MTA could examine incoming messages against the hash tables during the SMTP conversation by scanning for the appropriate codes in the data segment before accepting a message. If the message does not contain the code and also does not satisfy an alternative policy evaluation then the message would be rejected and incident recorded as abuse forcing a period of rejections at the envelope level for some period of time (consistent with the local policy of course). A system such as the above might be implemented as a "Special Service" for families with children on the internet. - This means low cost, high value, and profit potential (so it's likely to be adopted), plus a significant impact on spam reduction. I recommend that this should be included in a suite of protocols and practices that are part of the final solution. Sorry for the length. I hope this is helpful. _M PS: PL = Private Listening, from a common radio meachanism (PL tones). I posted infromation about this in another thread I believe so I'm not repeating it here. PPS: We recommend and use this mechanism with great success, though I don't have hard statistics to show. Hopefully it is logically obvious how effective this solution can be in many scenarios. A TINY bit of automation can go a very long way with this one also. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 14:29:39 2003 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 OAA00196 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:29:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y8pS-0003h5-KV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:29:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63ITA0R014195 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:29:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y8pS-0003gj-Gc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:29:10 -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 OAA00161; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:29:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y8pP-0006GA-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:29:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y8pO-0006G5-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:29:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y8pJ-0003aN-Dx; Thu, 03 Jul 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 19Y8p2-0003Yb-II for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:28:44 -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 OAA00096 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:28:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y8oz-0006F2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:28:41 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y8oz-0006Ev-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:28:41 -0400 Received: from [65.177.177.75] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2509662; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:28:36 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Ken Hirsch" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] The Solution To Spam - The First Response Cc: 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, 3 Jul 2003 11:56:11 -0400 At 8:40 PM -0400 7/2/03, Ken Hirsch wrote: > > for how you use it afterwards. I would guess that, at a minimum, >> the level of support you are requesting would result in a fee on the >> order of $1000/year in order to support the necessary infrastructure >> and support needs. It might be somewhat lower because the volume of >> sales would be many orders of magnitude higher than SSL certs, but I >> can't see it being any cheaper. > >You say that like it's a bad thing. If it would reduce the number of >SMTP servers by one or two orders of magnitude, that's great! Perhaps I'm not sure why that would be good. But leaving that aside. >But your assertion does not really check out. The extra cost for >identify verification should be on the order of $100 for the first >year and maybe $30 extra per renewal. Identify verification is only part of the proposal I was responding to. The other piece was verifying the good behavior of cert owner. That requires a clearing house for complaints, an arbitration process, and a mechanism for ensuring that the same person doesn't pop up under a different name (which is a different sort of verification problem, as you point out). That's where I'd expect the expense to come. Never mind the question of how you certify someone in a country that doesn't have as codified a banking and company registration system as those where most SSL certs are issued. >So, how much do CAs charge for code-signing certificates, which should >be comparable? The most expensive is Verisign, which is $400 the >first year and $300 for renewals. Others are half that. Code signing certs are probably a better example than SSL certs. Do you know how they handle complaints and revocations? >Right now the PKI is weak on certificate revocation, but that's not >strictly necessary. Third parties can label a given identity as a >spammer, just as they do for IP addresses. Right now virtually none of those third parties have an arbitration process. That would have to change. Modulo the problem of countries without a reliable certification structure, I actually I think that requiring signed certs on mail servers is a reasonable thing to do. Forget revocation for spamming and the like. At the very least it would solve the open-proxy problem. But the third-world problem is a very real one. One of the benefits of email right now is that it has created a level playing field for communication throughout the entire world. Cutting the third-world out of the information flow is not something I want 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 Thu Jul 3 14:29:42 2003 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 OAA00212 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:29:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y8pS-0003gm-HG for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:29:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63ITABh014179 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:29:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y8pS-0003gc-Dq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:29:10 -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 OAA00163; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:29:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y8pP-0006GE-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:29:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y8pO-0006G6-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:29:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y8pJ-0003aZ-Tf; Thu, 03 Jul 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 19Y8p6-0003Yv-Jn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:28:48 -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 OAA00105 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:28:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y8p3-0006FH-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:28:45 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y8p3-0006F7-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:28:45 -0400 Received: from [65.177.177.75] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2509665; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:28:43 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3F03E8F5.5040107@azza.com> References: <3F03E8F5.5040107@azza.com> To: Selby Hatch From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nothing will stop 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: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:08:05 -0400 At 2:27 AM -0600 7/3/03, Selby Hatch wrote: >Under a consent framework, I instruct my incoming MTA not to accept >email from anyone who cannot prove (through some defined method) that >they have my consent to send me email. The consent systems I see proposed sound a lot like a phone system without a phone book. In order to find out someone's phone number, you have to go out of band. I keep following the logic of consent, but I keep not finding the way it's going to work--even if I ignore the UI issues, which I think are insurmountable. Here's how my reasoning goes. The current email system allows people to send email to people they don't know. That's a feature. Most people receive email from people they don't know, or at least people who they didn't know they knew (e.g. grandma on vacation, cousin at new address...). Any consent system has to have a way for someone to contact me and ask for my consent. That message must contain sufficient information so that I can determine if in fact I do want to talk to the person. In the case of a person that I don't know, that means that they will have to provide a summary of *why* they want to talk to me. (E.g. reporting a bug in your software, your system sent me a virus, our company changed its name, this is your grandmother sending mail from a cruise ship....). I see absolutely no way to provide that information without providing a big enough window for spammers to send ads. What am I missing? -- 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 Jul 3 15:01:37 2003 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 PAA01301 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:01:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y9KP-0004Wi-H5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:01:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63J196C017396 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:01:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y9KP-0004WV-Dx for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:01:09 -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 PAA01265; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:01:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y9KM-00072a-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:01:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y9KL-00072X-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:01:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y9KH-0004Ud-M6; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:01:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y9Jz-0004U8-L8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:00:43 -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 PAA01243 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:00:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y9Jw-000727-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:00:40 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y9Jv-000722-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:00:39 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19Y9Jl-0002XH-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:00:29 +0100 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within consent paradigm To: "Tom Thomson" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.7] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 82.69.7.27 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, 03 Jul 2003 20:00:29 +0100 > "What are you on" is not a useful question to post on this list. > Sorry, meant to say "What are you on about" > > I'll risk Paul's wrath and reply in the same unhelpful vein as you have > adopted:- > > I guess if you don't understand that there is a very clear distinction > between wanting something and consenting to it we will all do better to > ignore anything you say about the consent model for spam/spam > control/spam > elimination, because you are clearly on something that has reduced your > ability to distinguish basic semantic concepts to the point where you > can't > usefully communicate. > Tom, I do distinguish between "want" and "consent". If you'll care to re-read my comment you'll note that I say "You "consent" (express a willingness) to receive them when you sign up with your supplier, because you need" (i.e. "want") "them." It appears that you imagine "want" to mean only "really enjoy having". Clearly an assertion of consent, unless originated by an insane person, will cover those things "wanted". To continue your rather strange electrical analogy, I may not like (wish, "want" in your sense) to be charged, but given that I am charged, I do want (need, desire) to be sent the bill. I hopes this clears thing up. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Kyme [mailto:jrk@merseymail.com] > Sent: 03 July 2003 15:17 > To: Tom Thomson > Cc: ASRG > Subject: Re: RE: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam > within consent paradigm > > > > One trouble here is that one moment you write "does not want" and at > > another > you write "does not consent to" just as if they meant the same > thing. > They > do not mean the same thing. > > I consent to receiving > bills from the people who supply my electricty, > but I > don't want to > receive those bills - I'd much rather have the electricity > free. I > don't > think those bills are spam - in fact I believe that any > definition of > spam > that includes those bills is just plain wrong. So spam What are you on? > Ar > you talking about your electricity or your electricity > bills? > Of course you "want" (need or desire) your electricity bills, given that > your electricity *isn't* free. Otherwise the first thing you'd know is > that > you get a court summons for non-payment. You "consent" (express a > willingness) to receive them when you sign up with your supplier, because > you need them. > What you "want" is a dictionary. > > > > -- > > > -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 15:07:36 2003 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 PAA01786 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:07:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y9QB-0004ko-Sl for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:07:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63J77wO018272 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:07:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y9QB-0004kd-PX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:07:07 -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 PAA01717; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:07:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y9Q8-0007Gy-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:07:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y9Q8-0007Gv-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:07:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y9Q5-0004ga-Kv; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:07:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y9Pb-0004fh-6j for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:06:31 -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 PAA01652 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:06:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y9PY-0007GS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:06:28 -0400 Received: from bay8-f112.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.112] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y9PX-0007Fu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:06:27 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:05:57 -0700 Received: from 62.253.9.152 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 19:05:56 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.253.9.152] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fifth Response Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2003 19:05:57.0208 (UTC) FILETIME=[2240D580:01C34196] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 03 Jul 2003 19:05:56 +0000 Thankyou for your comments. My comments are in the body of the message below. This post refers to the 'GIEIS' system cueently at version 0.002. An update to version 0.003 will be carried out in the next few days. 'GIEIS' has an extensive list of systems to be added and they will appear as soon as the documentation can be written. The 'GIEIS' system can be viewed here at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Please note, heavy sarcasm area, please wear your sense of humor. Mark McCarron. > >Message: 5 >From: "Hondin de Goot" >To: asrg@ietf.org >Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 09:42:31 -0500 >Subject: Re: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fourth Response > >Mark McCarron responded: > > > > Why not actually join the debate on 'GIEIS' instead of posting > > > subject matters that have nothing to do with this group? > > > > OK: > > > > Mark's Response: > > > > Thankyou. > > >And - just for you - a final final followup: > > > > The only reason why "spam" is a TECHNICAL NETWORKING > > problem is because it is almost cost-free to the SENDER. > > > > Mark's Response: > > > > This is not entirely accurate. Spam is the direct result in failures > > of design in the SMTP protocol. > > >You hope. Mark's Response: I know. > >It is entirely accurate: spam is FACILITATED by the lack of >adequate financial tracking mechanisms within either the TCP/IP or >SMTP packet/header structures, an omission presumably arising from >the fact that the designers were as remote from an understanding of >economics as it exists in the actual marketplace as you are, but it >is not otherwise causually related to the design of SMTP. > Mark's Response: No, that is not accurate. The main problem behind spam is the SMTP protocol and the fact that a server can be set up anywhere to tranmit emails. 'GIEIS' is designed to put in place these tracking measurements and limit email tranmission points. Also, no matter what was contained in the packet/header structures, a protocol alone cannot secure data communications. In reference to your claim about my lack of understanding of economics let me refer you to this website: http://www.noie.gov.au/publications/NOIE/spam/final_report/what.htm This site from the Austrialian government cites a figure of 10 Billion euro as the cost to global business each year directly due to spam. 'GIEIS' would bring this figure to virtually zero. Even if 'GIEIS' aborbed $5-$8 Billion (not that it ever would) it will would still make the industry a profit of $2-$5 Billion per year. These subjects are not just causually related, they have direct bearing on each other. >Had usable financial tracking mechanisms existed, both you and the >spammers would - everyday business being what it is - be paying for the >electronic mail you send exactly as you pay for the telephone calls you >make, often over the same packet switched networks (and as was the case >with GTE Telemail, etc, prior to the deployment of Internet technology) >and spam would not be the technical networking problem it is. > Mark's Response: Nonsense. Business would be saving so much money and generating new business that costs would infact drop and the end customers would be better off. Nobody wants to charge the end user for email and because spammers can exploit the weakness of the SMTP protocol itself, it wouldn't be effective anyway and only hurt end customers. It is explicitly a technical networking issue and only a system such as 'GIEIS' can address that. >Telephone marketing is a significant social problem as the recent >takeup of the new optout facility in the USA has demonstrated, but >it is not a technical networking problem because it is regulated >by caller charges. > Mark's Response: I understand your point, however, it is the fault of the exploitation of the SMTP protocol nothing else. Anyone can setup a server and transmit email. >The only reason why spam is a technical networking problem is because >it costs asses nothing to relieve themselves. > Mark Response: True in a sense, however, that is assisted by the structure of SMTP. > > > (1) In the short to medium term > > > > Devise a method of reasonably reliably identifying bulk spam, > > UCE or UBE and levying a charge on the senders (via any of their > > upstream carriers, financial pain having the properties that it > > does) which approaches that of any other method of commercial > > or non-private bulk message delivery and most of the TECHNICAL > > NETWORKING problems associated with spam - which are almost > > entirely due intractable volumes of traffic - would rapidly > > disappear. > > > > Mark's Response: > > > > The problem with this suggestion is that spammers are difficult to > > trace and even when traced there lacks the proper legal frameworks > > to do much about it. > > >Spammers are only difficult to trace because there has been, until >recently, little incentive to trace them and no sanctions placed >on any injection points (which certainly can do most of the >necessary tracing if well configured) for failure to do so. > Mark's Response: No. The Internet crosses many legal boundries across the planet. With anonymous connections such as those by proxy (SOCKS, HTTP, etc) and those by extensive proxy chains, simply back-tracing a tranmission is a legal nightmare. Imagine attempting to get server logs from 40 or 50 different countries and then not even being guarenteed that the culprit is still there at the end of it all. 'GIEIS' would eliminate the need for all of this. >As I was suggesting an industry solution based on current methodology, >why are you rabbitting on about legal frameworks for any other reason >than, because of basic lack of knowledge about the actual operation of >the Internet business, you have not even begun to grasp what I wrote? > Mark's Response: Legal frameworks are an important aspect behind the fight against spam. They are not consistant the throughout the globe. That is why 'GIEIS' is being structured in such a manner as to bring about a unified point of trust on the web that everyone can refer to. I'll admit it is difficult to understand your posts, you do tend to wander a bit. >The reason why mixed-ability classes proceed so slowly is because the >speed of understanding is limited by the slowness of the dumbest or >least knowedgeable student. Every detail must be (re)explained. >Shorthand discussion based on prior knowledge from earlier classes >and shared experience is unavailable. > Mark's Response: Thanks for the info. See what I mean about you wandering at times? > > > Spam is a direct result of a basic topology flaw of the internet. > > >What you refer to as a basic topology flaw is the sole reason why >why have the Internet now and not ISO-OSInet RSN. The Internet has >flourished, and every day continues to maintain connectivity, only >because of its most basic and overarching technical design principle, >one which is so fundamentally undermined by every single aspect of >your ever-expanding solipsism that it is clear you have not grasped >even the shadow of an understanding of it. Your ignorance is profound. > Mark's Response: Nonsense. In the early stages of Internet development this would have been true, however, certainly not now that it is established. Terrabytes of junk and harmful material is tranmitted everyday, 'GIEIS' would eliminate that. Changing the architecture of the Internet is not a big a task as you may think. So, over the course of a few years a few computers in each building are moved and new software installed. Hold on, that's really funny, it almost sounds exactly like what goes on in any IS/IT department everyday (note the sarcasm). > > > A reformulation of the SMTP protocol and implementation to the market > > place could be completed within 3 years. [...] You practically have > > a step by step guide with 'GIEIS'. > > >Does the vowel in "GIEIS" rhyme with "fleece" or with "scheisse"? Or >is it a diphthong, combining both? > Mark's Response: Its pronounced 'guy-is'. So the answer is neither. > > > With a sheet of paper, a pen, a postage stamp, an envelope > > and a public mail box it is possible to send an anonymous > > letter, lawful or otherwise, on any subject, to any person, > > institution or business behind a physical mail box. [...] > > > > I think you are forgeting another aspect of email, that is, it can be > > encrypted. Just because they can identfy which account the information > > came from, does not mean they can read its contents. > > >It is clear that I am remembering a great deal more about the nature of >anonymity than you have ever learned. Just what, however is for me and >many others reading here to know and you to find out. > > Mark's Response: You will still be able to set up anonymous accounts such as Hotmail, Yahoo and Lycos, etc. You just won't be able to spam from them or send offensive materials. Not a bad deal. > > This is how current anti-spam systems work and I do not see any mass > > public outcry about it. > > >What anti-spam systems? When I look around my MTA, I see no anti-spam >systems, and were I to discover that the nice people who handle my MX >when the network here is down were to have instituted any on my behalf, >I would have their guts for a Beethoven sonata. > Mark's Response: The main internet backbone is crawling with anti-spam filter software. All of it is based on heuristics. Heuristics is just an automated set of rules that will identify potential targets based on given criteria. Also, for those who handle your MX, I really don't think they would care about your opinion unless you wanted to pay the bill for the extra traffic. > > > Also, as I have pointed out before, governments across the world > > have super-computers dedicated to surveillance. > > >Governments we have to live with. Many ego-driven simpletons, >eminently corruptible in their arrogance, we are still able to avoid. > Mark's Response: Still haven't seen any demonstration of how to break the system... > > > It is worth addressing. A port scan only tests for basic security and > > access to a system. It is hardly a physical assault, also, coming from > > a trusted domain everyone would be quite aware it was not a breach > > attempt on their systems. Since these scans would be sent clear text > > across the web > ^^^ > >Uh huh. > Marks Response: Uh huh. > > > Although Usenet is now largely (but, even yet, by any means > / >Sorry, missed a "not" ----------------------------- > > > entirely) transported via NNTP, it is no part of the remit > of a TECHNICAL NETWORKING group, only loosely associated with > only one of its transmission protocols, to attempt to control > its content in any way other than from within Usenet's own > already well-established and effective control structures. > > > > It is part of this remit. The remit of this group relates to spam, not > > specific protocols. Spam is an issue that affects the NNTP protocol s > > well. NNTP has the same flaws in security as SMTP. > > >You seem to have a difficulty, perhaps dyslexic in nature, with the >differences between the SMTP and NNTP protocols. Let me give you a >clue: it is signalled in the first two letters of each acronym. But, >admittedly, that is only a detail given that you clearly have no idea >of the far more fundamental difference between Usenet and NNTP. > > Mark's Response: No I don't. Both protocols are to be replaced with a single common protocol. Other protocols may be absorbed too. > > Newsgroups are flooded with spam, Usenet's current procedures have > > proved ineffective. > > >If newsgroups are flooded with spam then that indicates only a >lack of interest in using its well-established and effective >control structures to prevent such. > Mark's Response: Nonsense again. They are unable to filter the spam. If they could they would. 'GIEIS' would stop spam to all forms of newgroups on a global basis. > > > 'GIEIS' would only assist with companies establsihing credibility > > on the internet. All companys would have to be 'GIEIS' registered > > and that requires being a legitimate registered company. 'GIEIS' > > under the 'CAA' system (details will be released in the next few > > days) would be able to retrieve company information, past complaints, > > and a complaints procedure system. Another feature of the system, is > > that it would be able to confirm emails were sent by employees from > > any company. > > > > 'CAA' will be part of the 'Internet Better Business Guild' that will > > be lead by 'GIEIS'. All companies that pass 'GIEIS' checks will be > > awarded a reference number. This will also take the form of a link > > that will appear in a small graphic on their website. This will lead > > directly to 'GIEIS' online reporting system and list extensive details > > on the company including previous complaints and resolutions with > > customers. > > > > This would virtually eliminate fraudulent business on the Internet. > > >On the one hand, you really are full of crap, but on the other, I have >to admit that you have an impressive knowledge of how to pile it high. > Mark's Response: Then please post your method of how to bypass 'GIEIS'. > > > Now, where's that unsubscribe button? Ah, here i > > Mark's Response: Must be broken :) > > > > Mark's Response: > > > > That is one way of putting it, but I don't see anything here that > > demonstrates that you are able to bypass my system. > > > > Mark McCarron. > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > On the move? Get Hotmail on your mobile phone > > >Sorry, I don't have a mobile phone. Now let's try that button aga Mark's Response: See you avoided the big question. No mobile, is that because 'they' are tracking you? Mark McCarron. _________________________________________________________________ Tired of 56k? Get a FREE BT Broadband connection 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 Thu Jul 3 15:18:36 2003 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 PAA02924 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:18:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y9ao-0005PM-IL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:18:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63JI6eL020789 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:18:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y9ao-0005PE-E2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:18:06 -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 PAA02907; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:18:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y9an-0007bH-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:18:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y9am-0007bE-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:18:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y9aj-0005NN-2E; Thu, 03 Jul 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 19Y9Zm-0005KK-Vz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:17:03 -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 PAA02843 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:17:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y9Zl-0007aK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:17:01 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y9Zh-0007aF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:16:57 -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 <20030703191810.VKWY28645.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:18:10 -0400 Message-ID: <3F04810A.2000309@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: Madscientist CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within consent paradigm References: <005201c3418d$229b1990$0a2458d8@MNR01> In-Reply-To: <005201c3418d$229b1990$0a2458d8@MNR01> 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, 03 Jul 2003 15:16:26 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Seems like a lot of what you get with a cert. This is almost the approach I took with the design I did. I can tell you it works and works well. Chuck Wegrzyn Madscientist wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On >>Behalf Of Bob Wyman >>Barry Shein wrote: >> >> >>>Although reasonable-sounding these descriptions [of consent] >>>are starting to remind me of those long-ago Artificial Intelligence >>>seminars where you'd get to ponder why some seemingly simple >>>human behavior was so difficult to code into a program. >>> >>> >> We've had precisely the same issue with software >> >> > > > > > >>detect identity. The machine can only detect the use of things >>which are assumed to indicate identity. (i.e. When if someone >>says "Only Bob can send mail" what the machine needs to hear >>is "Only someone using Bob's private key can send mail." For a >>person, "identity" is an attribute of being. For the computer, >>identity is a property which is assumed belong to users of >>certain proofs of identity. >> But, this is all getting a bit philosophical. Barry has >>a point. As we get into dealing with the issues of expressing >>and managing consent, we must all be careful to ensure that >>people understand the inherent limitations of machines in this >>realm. There is only so much that the machine can do for you. >> >> bob wyman >> >> > >There are some simple and effective mechanisms for the scenario of >identifying consent, though they may not be applicable in some cases. > >Here is one that is not a complete solution, but is very effective and >solves the problem of expectation and identification in many of the most >critical scenarios (such as children and grandmothers avoiding porn >spam): > >Simplified: > >1. The recipient issues a secret code (PL code) of their choice to each >of the people they wish to communicate with. > >1.1. The secret code _should_ be cryptographically secure but _may_ be >anything unique enough to be effective for that user's purpose. > >1.2. The user in this case _may_ be broadly defined as a group of users >such as a family, or a special team in a corporate environment. > >2. The user filters out / rejects all messages that do not contain the >secret code in the body of the message. > >2.1. The secret code becomes a mechanism of explicit consent. > >2.2. In some cases (such as juvinile accounts) the ability to change the >code or adjust the filtering may be restricted. > >3. Trusted users who receive the code may freely distribute the code to >other users whom they wish to include in the group. In this way the >"authority" to transmit messages to members of the group can naturally >extend to appropriate senders in a "viral" manner with very little >administration. > >3.1. Kids will naturally share their PL code with their friends. >3.2. Parents will share/register the code with teachers and extended >family members. > >4. If the PL code is compromized then it can be easily changed because a >new code can be generated and transmitted to everyone in the group (or >at least a large collection of them). If this mechanism is automated in >some way then the system can be very secure an lightweight. > >5. Attempts to send to members of this group withou the appropriate code >can be used to detect attempted abuse - and these statistics can be used >to drive other mechanisms such as black lists or statisitical training >systems. > >This mechanism can be implemented right now and is extremely effective. > >The user's expectations are precise: If someone has the code I can hear >from them. If they do not have the code I should not hear from them. > >The system's responses are precise: If the code exists then the message >passes, if it does not then the message does not pass. (The PL code may >be implemented with stronger controls such as placement in specific >message headers or other specific rules, however it generally works well >when simply included in the body of the message like a signature or some >kind of "inside joke"). > >The system is extremely secure because anonymous senders are not >generally able to extract or guess these PL codes and if they do then >the codes are easily changed. > >The system can be extended to support legitimate mailing lists because >special codes can be provided to the mailing list author at the time of >subscription by the subscriber as part of the normal customization data >provided by the user. One variant of this is to subscribe to the list >using a cryptographic alias that can be turned off if it is ever abused. >A more secure implementation would require the author of the list to >include the code provided as part of the customized portion of the >subscriber's messages (customization is often the norm these days anyway >such as including the subscriber's name and so forth). > >This mechanism naturally extends a COT model (Circle Of Trust) because >is a good example of that paradigm. COT systems provide for effective, >lightweight authentication mechanisms without a centralized authority. > >This mechanism is not proprietary, not centrally controlled, represents >very little cost, and does not preclude any other mechanisms that might >also be enforced as part of a local policy. > >Extended implementation example: > >The mechanism can also be aggregated and driven forward within the >systems of a given provider such that individual users might register >their authorized codes with the provider (using some standardized format >established by the provider), those codes could then be aggregated into >a hash table, and message content reaching a border MTA could examine >incoming messages against the hash tables during the SMTP conversation >by scanning for the appropriate codes in the data segment before >accepting a message. If the message does not contain the code and also >does not satisfy an alternative policy evaluation then the message would >be rejected and incident recorded as abuse forcing a period of >rejections at the envelope level for some period of time (consistent >with the local policy of course). > >A system such as the above might be implemented as a "Special Service" >for families with children on the internet. - This means low cost, high >value, and profit potential (so it's likely to be adopted), plus a >significant impact on spam reduction. > >I recommend that this should be included in a suite of protocols and >practices that are part of the final solution. > >Sorry for the length. >I hope this is helpful. >_M > >PS: PL = Private Listening, from a common radio meachanism (PL tones). I >posted infromation about this in another thread I believe so I'm not >repeating it here. > >PPS: We recommend and use this mechanism with great success, though I >don't have hard statistics to show. Hopefully it is logically obvious >how effective this solution can be in many scenarios. A TINY bit of >automation can go a very long way with this one also. > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jul 3 15:32:35 2003 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 PAA03339 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:32:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y9oL-000664-TL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:32:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63JW5gG023437 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:32:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y9oL-00065w-Ne for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:32:05 -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 PAA03324; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:32:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y9oK-00007E-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:32:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y9oJ-00007B-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:32:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y9oI-00063r-8Y; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:32:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y9nm-0005zN-5i for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:31:30 -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 PAA03283 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:31:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y9nk-00006I-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:31:28 -0400 Received: from earth.tc.umn.edu ([160.94.5.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y9nj-00006B-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:31:28 -0400 Received: by earth.tc.umn.edu; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:31:19 -0500 From: Steven F Siirila To: Mark McCarron Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fifth Response Message-ID: <20030703193119.GA28049@earth.tc.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: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:31:19 -0500 On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 07:05:56PM +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: > > >> (1) In the short to medium term > >> > >> Devise a method of reasonably reliably identifying bulk spam, > >> UCE or UBE and levying a charge on the senders (via any of their > >> upstream carriers, financial pain having the properties that it > >> does) which approaches that of any other method of commercial > >> or non-private bulk message delivery and most of the TECHNICAL > >> NETWORKING problems associated with spam - which are almost > >> entirely due intractable volumes of traffic - would rapidly > >> disappear. > >> > >> Mark's Response: > >> > >> The problem with this suggestion is that spammers are difficult to > >> trace and even when traced there lacks the proper legal frameworks > >> to do much about it. > > > > > >Spammers are only difficult to trace because there has been, until > >recently, little incentive to trace them and no sanctions placed > >on any injection points (which certainly can do most of the > >necessary tracing if well configured) for failure to do so. > > > Mark's Response: > > No. The Internet crosses many legal boundries across the planet. With > anonymous connections such as those by proxy (SOCKS, HTTP, etc) and those > by extensive proxy chains, simply back-tracing a tranmission is a legal > nightmare. Imagine attempting to get server logs from 40 or 50 different > countries and then not even being guarenteed that the culprit is still > there at the end of it all. 'GIEIS' would eliminate the need for all of > this. So would simply requiring reverse DNS as well as a record indicating whether or not an IP address has been designated as an MTA. This would make all of the open proxies, hacked desktops, and dynamic IP ranges unable to send mail directly to a site's MX server, forcing them to use an ISP's SMTP gateway. What you would have left is legitimate MTAs (some of which may be open relays). This is essentially where we are headed at our site by putting these sorts of things into place gradually. -- 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 Thu Jul 3 15:37:37 2003 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 PAA03463 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:37:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y9tE-0006We-Lc for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:37:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63Jb84r025079 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:37:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y9tE-0006WQ-HV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:37:08 -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 PAA03448; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:37:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y9tD-0000Kw-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:37:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y9tC-0000Kt-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:37:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y9t8-0006Rx-Sl; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:37:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y9sn-0006QT-PU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:36:41 -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 PAA03434 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:36:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y9sm-0000KQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:36:40 -0400 Received: from bay8-f123.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.123] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y9sl-0000Jj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:36:39 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:36:08 -0700 Received: from 213.104.228.175 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 19:36:08 GMT X-Originating-IP: [213.104.228.175] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fourth Response Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2003 19:36:08.0377 (UTC) FILETIME=[59CB4A90:01C3419A] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 03 Jul 2003 19:36:08 +0000 Thankyou for your comments. My comments are in the body of the message below. This post refers to the 'GIEIS' system cueently at version 0.002. An update to version 0.003 will be carried out in the next few days. 'GIEIS' has an extensive list of systems to be added and they will appear as soon as the documentation can be written. The 'GIEIS' system can be viewed here at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. >--__--__-- > >Message: 7 >From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" >To: "'Esa Laitinen'" , asrg@ietf.org >Subject: RE: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fourth Response >Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:50:27 -0700 > >I seem to remember that excessive port scanning was one of the issues that >was litigated in the new Zealand ORBS cases. > Mark's Response: 'GIEIS' would not be involved in excessive port scanning. Also, 'GIEIS' role one be one of protection not agression which no court would rule against. A further consideration, is the fact that a country can only make laws for that which falls within its territorial claim. Therefore, they cannot prosecute scans coming not coming from within their country. >I tried to read the GIEIS paper and I cannot understand what the proposal >is, what it is trying to achieve or what the prospect of a reduction in >spam >as a result would be. > Mark's Response: The document assumes a knowlege in broad networking skills. In short, the system secures email transmission by independently confirming sender and recipient. It eliminates completely the abitily to setup an email server and begin sending spam across the internet by changing how email is transmitted across the Internet. Any such attempt at sending spam from 'non-GIEIS registered' accounts would result in the destruction of all emails sent to those protected by 'GIEIS'. 'GIEIS' then has technical features to enable to limit any form of spam from 'GIEIS Compliant' accounts. 'GIEIS' would remove 98%-99& of all spam and virus' on the Internet. The rest would fade due to the difficulty of tranmission. 'GIEIS' also removes 'bot spam' from Instant messengers. >Statements that 'intellectual copyright' is reserved do not lend >confidence, >I am not aware of any such concept in US or international copyright law. >Copyright protects the embodiment of an idea, never the idea itself. Even >the EU doctrine of moral right of the author does not cover this. > > > Phill > Mark's Response: I am also outlining processes and methods that puts it in a slightly different legal catagory. Mark McCarron. _________________________________________________________________ Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you. http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 15:40:33 2003 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 PAA03588 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:40:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y9w4-0006yg-BU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:40:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63Je4jl026816 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:40:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y9w4-0006yR-7e for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:40:04 -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 PAA03576; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:40:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y9w2-0000Me-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:40:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y9w2-0000Mb-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:40:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y9w1-0006v9-QC; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:40:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y9vF-0006u6-VJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:39:14 -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 PAA03530 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:39:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y9vE-0000Lu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:39:12 -0400 Received: from 000-228-755.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.132.156] helo=68.27.132.156) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y9vB-0000Lk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:39:10 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030703153840.00b6cc50@solidmatrix.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 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 PAA03531 Subject: [Asrg] 4. Survey of Solutions - Consent 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, 03 Jul 2003 15:38:41 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I wrote up an document on the consent model=20 (http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-consent-framework.html).=20 This is a rough draft, so please don't eat me :) Please comment on=20 everything including any items that you think I extra. I will probably be= =20 changing it into a Internet Draft format soon. Below is the main part of=20 the document. ---snip---- 4. Overview of Consent Model. The idea for consent model within the ASRG was first proposed in=20 [ASRG-CHARTER]: "Therefore, we generalize the problem into "consent-based communication".= =20 This means that an individual or organization should be able to express=20 consent or lack of consent for certain communication and have the=20 architecture support those desires." This model assumes that users should be able to define what kind of email= =20 they want to receive - this is refered to as "consent" . "Lack of consent= "=20 is either when no prior consent existing or the users revoked their prior= =20 consent. This model does not concern itself with defining what spam is =AD= =20 one person's spam message may be another's freedom of speech. Thus, we on= ly=20 seek to define a framework to let users grant and deny consent, the rules= =20 under which this process is done is best left to the implementors and the= =20 users themselves. In the consent model we have a SENDER and RECEIVER of email that=20 communicate with each other. The messages between the SENDER and the=20 RECEIVER are processed by MUAs and transferred by MTAs. The RECEIVER can=20 express his CONSENT POLICY to his MUA and MTA, which will enforce it for=20 incoming messages. This policy may be communicated to the SENDER under=20 specific circumstances, usually after being triggered by an incoming emai= l=20 message from the SENDER. This purpose of this communications will be to=20 inform the SENDER of lack of consent by the RECEIVER and to request a=20 CONSENT TOKEN (if applicable). A CONSENT TOKEN is a piece of data exchang= ed=20 between the RECEIVER and the SENDER, which will grant consent to the SEND= ER=20 in accordance with the CONSENT POLICY of the RECEIVER. Examples of such=20 tokens are C/R messages, hash cash tokens, e-postage, digital certificate= s,=20 trusted sender seals (such as Habeas and BondedSender), etc. Upon recipie= nt=20 of a valid CONSENT TOKEN, the RECEIVER will grant consent to the SENDER t= o=20 a period of time defined by the CONSENT POLICY. A CONSENT POLICY of a specific end-user does not merely reflect his=20 choices. It is also based on the CONSENT POLICY of the software being use= d,=20 the organization to which the end user belongs, and the ISP. The software= =20 being used, specifically the MUA and the MTA, might support only specific= =20 types of consent rules which will be used in creation of the policy.=20 CONSENT POLICIES from multiple users maybe combined to create a combined=20 CONSENT POLICY for the entire organization or ISP. The organization or IS= P=20 may also impose its CONSENT POLICY on its users and subscribers. MTAs when communicating with each other may share CONSENT POLICIES to=20 facilitate communications. They may also pass CONSENT TOKENS between=20 themselves in order to dynamically grant or revoke consent to the RECEIVE= R.=20 Multiple ISPs and organizations may also shared CONSENT POLICIES in order= =20 to allow for interoperability between themselves. Standard CONSENT POLICI= ES=20 may also be defined as Best Current Practices (BCP) documents. A CONSENT POLICY specifies the rules under which email is accepted or=20 revoked. To enforce these rules the MTAs and MUAs may rely on various oth= er=20 sources of data being provided either in the message body, by the SENDER = or=20 from third parties on the Internet. Two aspects must be kept in mind. First of all consent systems may grant = or=20 revoke consent automatically based on the CONSENT POLICY. The policy does= =20 not define consent only, it also defines conditions for automatically=20 granting and revoking consent. Additionally, machines cannot perfectly=20 reproduce human wishes and the CONSENT POLICY created might not match=20 exactly what the end-user wants especially considering other CONSENT=20 POLICIES such as the organization's and the ISP's. 5. Taxonomy of Anti-Spam Systems Within the Consent Framework. There are three basic types of anti spam tools within the consent=20 frameworks defined in [ASRG-CHARTER]: "Possible components of such a framework may include: o Consent Expression Component: This involves recipients expressing a policy that gives consent or=20 non-consent for certain types of communications o Policy Enforcement Component: This involves subsystems within the communication system that enforce the= =20 policy. The overall framework may involve multiple subsystems within the=20 policy enforcement component. This may involve fail-open or fail-closed=20 approaches. With a fail-open approach, the system must identify messages=20 that do not have consent. For example, this may include approaches that=20 determine the nature of a message based on its characteristics or input=20 from a collaborative filtering system. With a fail-closed approach, the=20 system must identify messages that do have consent and only allow those t= o=20 be delivered. For example, consent may be expressed by a policy, by a=20 "consent token" within the message, or by some payment that essentially=20 purchases consent or delivery rights. o Source Tracking Component: This component provides deterrence to parties that consider violating the= =20 policy by facilitating identification and tracking of senders that violat= e=20 the policy. This may require non-repudiation at the original sender, the=20 sender's ISP, or some other entities involved in the communication system= ." 5.1. Consent Expression Component. This category includes tools that let users express their consent choices= .=20 The choices that the user makes are then translated into a CONSENT POLICY= =20 which may be restricted by the software implementation, the organization = or=20 the ISP. Today there is no one comprehensive plan or language to express=20 consent. Examples of such tools include: Filter definitions Spam tools configuration files Blacklists Whitelists 5.2. Policy Enforcement Component. This category includes portions of the MTAs/MUAs that enforce the CONSENT= =20 POLICY defined for the end user as modified by the organization and the=20 ISP's CONSENT POLICIES. These tools are used while the SMTP transaction=20 takes place. Today there is no one comprehensive type of tool to do that,= =20 instead combinations of tools are used. Examples of these tools include: Challenge/Response Systems Reverse DNS checks (RMX/rDNS/etc.) Lookups in Realtime Black Lists (RBLs) Verification of digital certificates with a CA Checking for trusted sender seals (Habeas, etc.) Filtering (SpamAssasin, etc. Lookups in known spam databases (SpamNet., DCC, etc.) Blacklisting Greylisting Virus scanning 5.3. Source Tracking Component. This category includes various tools that track spam and spammers. These=20 tools produce data that is used by POLICY ENFORCEMENT COMPONENTS for=20 enforce policies; and by ISPs and LEAs for track down spammers. Today the= re=20 is no single comprehensive standard for this. Example of these include: Coordinated spam detection (DCC, SpamCop, SpamNet, Razor, etc.) Open relay testing (MAPS, RBLs, etc.) Detection of hacked computers (Dshield.org, etc. 6. Standardization Considerations. In order for the consent model to operate properly, we need to define the= =20 following items: 1. Language for expressing consent. 2. Machine readable format for CONSENT POLICIES 3. Machine readable format for CONSENT TOKENS 4. Protocols for sharing CONSENT POLICIES 5. Protocols for sharing CONSENT TOKENS 6. Protocols for different components of the consent framework to=20 communicate among themselves. ---snip---=20 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 15:42:32 2003 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 PAA03718 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:42:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y9xy-00078w-DL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:42:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63Jg2t1027452 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:42:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y9xy-00078h-9n for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:42:02 -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 PAA03684; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:42:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y9xw-0000O0-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:42:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y9xw-0000Nx-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:42:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y9xw-00075c-Cc; Thu, 03 Jul 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 19Y9xN-00074s-Tn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:41:25 -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 PAA03637 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:41:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y9xM-0000NN-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:41:24 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr7.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y9xM-0000NF-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:41:24 -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 OXW28914; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:41:04 -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 AKA34296; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:41:03 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Kee Hinckley'" , "'Selby Hatch'" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Nothing will stop spam??? Message-ID: <002901c3419b$0c86e810$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: 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, 3 Jul 2003 15:41:07 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Kee Hinckley wrote: > The current email system allows people to send email to=20 > people they don't know. That's a feature. Consent based systems need not interfere with this if the system is used in order to provide preferred handling of mail which is consented to while still allowing delivery of mail for which consent has not been granted. For instance, mail which meets all consent rules might be delivered to the main inbox while mail which does not would be delivered to a "gray" inbox that would need to be scanned from time to time. Personally, I don't see how a "graybox" can be avoided... Perhaps a good way to think about this would be to remember the old phrase: "Have we been introduced?" and the once normal practice of sending "Letters of Introduction." In the old world, you couldn't just go off talking to anyone you wanted to. The expectation was that you would be first introduced. If consent based systems become more popular, what we're going to see is people doing things like writing letters of introduction. For instance, I'll write an email saying: "Tom asked for your email address today. He's a good guy and should be on your whitelist." On a more technical line, we might see the creation of a specific form of email message which is a "request for permission to send." This would be something like a specific MIME type, perhaps XML encoded, that would be recognized by consent based systems. One would send a message in this form providing a self-introduction and requesting permission to send. Of course, spammers might send such things, however, my guess is that the response rates would be so phenomenally low that they would soon stop doing so. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 15:46:45 2003 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 PAA03880 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:46:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YA24-0007IJ-O5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:46:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63JkGOv028033 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:46:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YA24-0007I4-Jp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:46:16 -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 PAA03871; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:46:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YA23-0000ah-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:46:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YA22-0000ae-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:46:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YA1p-0007F9-4Z; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:46:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YA14-0007EY-LO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:45:14 -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 PAA03835 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:45:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YA13-0000Zc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:45:13 -0400 Received: from mnr1.microneil.com ([216.88.36.96]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YA12-0000ZR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:45:12 -0400 Received: by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix, from userid 93) id A825429C06C; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:44:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MicroNeil.com (mail.microneil.com [216.88.36.161]) by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B9A229C06B for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:44:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MNR01 [216.88.36.10] by MicroNeil.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.05) id A78D87010140; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:44:13 -0400 From: "Madscientist" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within consent paradigm Message-ID: <006e01c3419b$7ac82820$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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 In-Reply-To: <3F04810A.2000309@garbagedump.com> Importance: Normal X-Declude-Spoolname: D878d140.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: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:44:13 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >-----Original Message----- >From: C. Wegrzyn [mailto:wegrzyn@garbagedump.com] >Seems like a lot of what you get with a cert. This is almost the >approach I took with the design I did. I can tell you it works >and works >well. > >Chuck Wegrzyn > Thanks for that. The thing I feel most strongly about concerning this type of "consent" and/or "identity" mechanism is that certification mechanism should be open, decentralized, and entirely in the control of the end users. Unlike certs, which usually require some centralize authority for a signature, simple shared secrets can be created and destroyed entirely at the behest of the user groups involved and require no cost beyond that effort. (It is possible to have certs signed by some elected member of the group, or to self sign, or to elect some local authority for the local COT, however the entire cert discussion tends to add unnecessary complexity I think.) _M _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 15:53:37 2003 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 PAA03936 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:53:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YA8h-0007T9-FW for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:53:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63Jr7ig028702 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:53:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YA8h-0007Sr-BU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:53:07 -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 PAA03925; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:53:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YA8f-0000dX-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:53:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YA8e-0000dT-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:53:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YA8a-0007P2-NI; Thu, 03 Jul 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 19YA7r-0007OW-KM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 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 PAA03912 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:52:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YA7q-0000ct-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:52:14 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr7.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YA7p-0000cp-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:52:13 -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 OXW30085; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:52:10 -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 AKA36051; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:52:09 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Kee Hinckley'" , "'Selby Hatch'" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Nothing will stop spam??? Message-ID: <002a01c3419c$99ba1a80$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: 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, 3 Jul 2003 15:52:14 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Kee Hinckley wrote: > In order to find out someone's phone number,=20 > you have to go out of band. No. The issue here isn't finding the phone number, its determining whether or not the phone number you find is useful to *you*. i.e. Depending on how the consent system is written, it is entirely possible the many people could know your email address but only some of them would be able to use it to actually get mail to you (or to your "green" inbox). One addition to my earlier response on "Letters of Introduction.": If the system of monitoring consent relies on PKI certificates of some sort, then it could be made possible for someone who has been granted permission to send to you to then "delegate" this permission to others. For instance, if I know that "Tom" wants to talk with "Kee" and that I have permission to do so but Tom doesn't, then I could issue a token to Tom that gave him at least the temporary ability to send mail to Kee. Kee, upon reading Tom's mail, would then decide whether to grant Tom continued permission to send or to revoke that permission. Of course, if I get stupid in handing out Kee's address to too many people, Kee would probably revoke my permission to do so. (Note: it is undoubtedly the case that viruses could force improper delegation of grants. However, as long as delegated grants are time limited or otherwise expire, the occasional bursts of spam should fade out quickly.) bob wyman -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kee Hinckley Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:08 PM To: Selby Hatch Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nothing will stop spam??? At 2:27 AM -0600 7/3/03, Selby Hatch wrote: >Under a consent framework, I instruct my incoming MTA not to accept=20 >email from anyone who cannot prove (through some defined method) that=20 >they have my consent to send me email. The consent systems I see proposed sound a lot like a phone system=20 without a phone book. In order to find out someone's phone number,=20 you have to go out of band. I keep following the logic of consent, but I keep not finding the way=20 it's going to work--even if I ignore the UI issues, which I think are=20 insurmountable. Here's how my reasoning goes. The current email system allows people to send email to people they=20 don't know. That's a feature. Most people receive email from people=20 they don't know, or at least people who they didn't know they knew=20 (e.g. grandma on vacation, cousin at new address...). Any consent system has to have a way for someone to contact me and=20 ask for my consent. That message must contain sufficient information so that I can=20 determine if in fact I do want to talk to the person. In the case of a person that I don't know, that means that they will=20 have to provide a summary of *why* they want to talk to me. (E.g.=20 reporting a bug in your software, your system sent me a virus, our=20 company changed its name, this is your grandmother sending mail from=20 a cruise ship....). I see absolutely no way to provide that information without providing=20 a big enough window for spammers to send ads. What am I missing? --=20 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 Thu Jul 3 15:53:37 2003 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 PAA03938 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:53:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YA8h-0007TM-Hh for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:53:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63Jr7Wt028718 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:53:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YA8h-0007Sx-Dz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:53:07 -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 PAA03928; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:53:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YA8f-0000da-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:53:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YA8e-0000dU-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:53:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YA8b-0007PA-3l; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:53:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YA8M-0007Oi-05 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:52:46 -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 PAA03918 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:52:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YA8K-0000dI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:52:44 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YA8J-0000dF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:52:43 -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 <20030703195431.VVEE28645.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:54:31 -0400 Message-ID: <3F048993.80308@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: Madscientist CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within consent paradigm References: <006e01c3419b$7ac82820$0a2458d8@MNR01> In-Reply-To: <006e01c3419b$7ac82820$0a2458d8@MNR01> 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, 03 Jul 2003 15:52:51 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit True. The problem is that without some kind of management scheme you might just find yourself having too many little secrets all over the place. And should you go from job to job or ISP to ISP how would this work? Is this a client side solution? Chuck Madscientist wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: C. Wegrzyn [mailto:wegrzyn@garbagedump.com] >> >> > > > >>Seems like a lot of what you get with a cert. This is almost the >>approach I took with the design I did. I can tell you it works >>and works >>well. >> >>Chuck Wegrzyn >> >> >> > >Thanks for that. The thing I feel most strongly about concerning this >type of "consent" and/or "identity" mechanism is that certification >mechanism should be open, decentralized, and entirely in the control of >the end users. Unlike certs, which usually require some centralize >authority for a signature, simple shared secrets can be created and >destroyed entirely at the behest of the user groups involved and require >no cost beyond that effort. > >(It is possible to have certs signed by some elected member of the >group, or to self sign, or to elect some local authority for the local >COT, however the entire cert discussion tends to add unnecessary >complexity I think.) > >_M > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jul 3 15:59:36 2003 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 PAA04201 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:59:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YAEV-0007jG-HE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:59:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63Jx7FA029704 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:59:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YAEV-0007iI-Cx for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:59:07 -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 PAA04160; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:59:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YAET-0000rQ-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:59:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YAET-0000rN-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:59:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YAEP-0007g2-9k; Thu, 03 Jul 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 19YADh-0007fc-Pb for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:58:17 -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 PAA04073 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:58:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YADg-0000qJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:58:16 -0400 Received: from bay8-f98.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.98] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YADf-0000pX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:58:15 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:57:44 -0700 Received: from 213.104.228.175 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 19:57:43 GMT X-Originating-IP: [213.104.228.175] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fourth Response Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2003 19:57:44.0173 (UTC) FILETIME=[5E2611D0:01C3419D] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 03 Jul 2003 19:57:43 +0000 Thankyou for your comments. My comments are in the body of the message below. This post refers to the 'GIEIS' system cueently at version 0.002. An update to version 0.003 will be carried out in the next few days. 'GIEIS' has an extensive list of systems to be added and they will appear as soon as the documentation can be written. The 'GIEIS' system can be viewed here at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. >--__--__-- > >Message: 7 >From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" >To: "'Esa Laitinen'" , asrg@ietf.org >Subject: RE: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fourth Response >Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:50:27 -0700 > >I seem to remember that excessive port scanning was one of the issues that >was litigated in the new Zealand ORBS cases. > Mark's Response: 'GIEIS' would not be involved in excessive port scanning. Also, 'GIEIS' role one be one of protection not agression which no court would rule against. A further consideration, is the fact that a country can only make laws for that which falls within its territorial claim. Therefore, they cannot prosecute scans coming not coming from within their country. >I tried to read the GIEIS paper and I cannot understand what the proposal >is, what it is trying to achieve or what the prospect of a reduction in >spam >as a result would be. > Mark's Response: The document assumes a knowlege in broad networking skills. In short, the system secures email transmission by independently confirming sender and recipient. It eliminates completely the abitily to setup an email server and begin sending spam across the internet by changing how email is transmitted across the Internet. Any such attempt at sending spam from 'non-GIEIS registered' accounts would result in the destruction of all emails sent to those protected by 'GIEIS'. 'GIEIS' then has technical features to enable to limit any form of spam from 'GIEIS Compliant' accounts. 'GIEIS' would remove 98%-99& of all spam and virus' on the Internet. The rest would fade due to the difficulty of tranmission. 'GIEIS' also removes 'bot spam' from Instant messengers. >Statements that 'intellectual copyright' is reserved do not lend >confidence, >I am not aware of any such concept in US or international copyright law. >Copyright protects the embodiment of an idea, never the idea itself. Even >the EU doctrine of moral right of the author does not cover this. > > > Phill > Mark's Response: I am also outlining processes and methods that puts it in a slightly different legal catagory. 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 Thu Jul 3 16:04:51 2003 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 QAA04523 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:04:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YAJa-0007sB-4y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:04:22 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63K4MmV030259 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:04:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YAJZ-0007ry-Ui for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:04:21 -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 QAA04510; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:04:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YAJY-00017r-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:04:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YAJX-00017n-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:04:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YAJF-0007pz-Ii; Thu, 03 Jul 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 19YAJA-0007pn-OR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:03:56 -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 QAA04502 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:03:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YAJ9-00017W-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:03:55 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=mr10.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YAJ8-00017S-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:03:54 -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 ACH36331; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:03:52 -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 AKA37968; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:03:52 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: Cc: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list Message-ID: <002d01c3419e$3c2df970$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <000b01c32fbc$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, 3 Jul 2003 16:03:56 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It is Thursday, thus, there are more spam-related patent applications at the USPTO. Among today's publications, the following seem most interesting: 20030126300 Method, system, and product for marking particular types of communications=20 20030126218 Unsolicited commercial e-mail rejection setting method and e-mail apparatus using the same=20 20030126120 System and method for multiple data sources to plug into a standardized interface for distributed deep search=20 To view these applications, go to: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html Then, issue one of the following three queries: DN/20030126300=20 DN/20030126218 DN/20030126120 (i.e. you want to search for "DN" or "Document Number") bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 16:05:32 2003 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 QAA04550 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:05:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YAKF-00083f-8u for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:05:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63K53EZ030969 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:05:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YAKF-00083Q-5i for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:05:03 -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 QAA04543; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:05:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YAKD-00018T-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:05:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YAKD-00018Q-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:05:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YAKD-0007x9-QR; Thu, 03 Jul 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 19YAK8-0007wn-88 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:04:56 -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 QAA04539 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:04:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YAK6-00018L-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:04:54 -0400 Received: from bay8-f74.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.74] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YAK5-00017w-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:04:54 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:04:23 -0700 Received: from 213.104.228.175 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:04:23 GMT X-Originating-IP: [213.104.228.175] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: sfs@tc.umn.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fifth Response Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2003 20:04:23.0856 (UTC) FILETIME=[4C60DB00:01C3419E] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 03 Jul 2003 20:04:23 +0000 Thankyou for your comments. My comments are in the body of the message below. This post refers to the 'GIEIS' system cueently at version 0.002. An update to version 0.003 will be carried out in the next few days. 'GIEIS' has an extensive list of systems to be added and they will appear as soon as the documentation can be written. The 'GIEIS' system can be viewed here at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. >From: Steven F Siirila >To: Mark McCarron >CC: asrg@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fifth Response >Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:31:19 -0500 > >On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 07:05:56PM +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: > > > > >> (1) In the short to medium term > > >> > > >> Devise a method of reasonably reliably identifying bulk spam, > > >> UCE or UBE and levying a charge on the senders (via any of their > > >> upstream carriers, financial pain having the properties that it > > >> does) which approaches that of any other method of commercial > > >> or non-private bulk message delivery and most of the TECHNICAL > > >> NETWORKING problems associated with spam - which are almost > > >> entirely due intractable volumes of traffic - would rapidly > > >> disappear. > > >> > > >> Mark's Response: > > >> > > >> The problem with this suggestion is that spammers are difficult to > > >> trace and even when traced there lacks the proper legal frameworks > > >> to do much about it. > > > > > > > > >Spammers are only difficult to trace because there has been, until > > >recently, little incentive to trace them and no sanctions placed > > >on any injection points (which certainly can do most of the > > >necessary tracing if well configured) for failure to do so. > > > > > > Mark's Response: > > > > No. The Internet crosses many legal boundries across the planet. With > > anonymous connections such as those by proxy (SOCKS, HTTP, etc) and >those > > by extensive proxy chains, simply back-tracing a tranmission is a legal > > nightmare. Imagine attempting to get server logs from 40 or 50 >different > > countries and then not even being guarenteed that the culprit is still > > there at the end of it all. 'GIEIS' would eliminate the need for all of > > this. > >So would simply requiring reverse DNS as well as a record indicating >whether >or not an IP address has been designated as an MTA. This would make all of >the open proxies, hacked desktops, and dynamic IP ranges unable to send >mail >directly to a site's MX server, forcing them to use an ISP's SMTP gateway. >What you would have left is legitimate MTAs (some of which may be open >relays). >This is essentially where we are headed at our site by putting these sorts >of >things into place gradually. >-- Marl's Response: I am afraid that would not work. Spammers would just use lists of resolvable domain names. Also, some form of centralisation would be required to maintain the list you describe. Another problem would arise from sending authorisation requests cleartext over the Internet, these could be intercepted and responded to allowing spammers access. This is exactly what 'GIEIS' architecture eliminates completely. > >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 _________________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Jul 3 16:08:32 2003 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 QAA04630 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:08:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YAN9-0008Md-E7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:08:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63K83Dd032146 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:08:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YAN9-0008MP-As for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:08:03 -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 QAA04621; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:08:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YAN7-0001AJ-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:08:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YAN7-0001AF-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:08:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YAN7-0008KU-GS; Thu, 03 Jul 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 19YAMq-0008Ha-9j for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:07:44 -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 QAA04606 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:07:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YAMo-00019t-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:07:42 -0400 Received: from host217-35-105-169.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.105.169] helo=mail.neosinteractive.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YAMn-00019q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:07:41 -0400 Received: from tthomson ([217.35.105.173] unverified) by mail.neosinteractive.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 3 Jul 2003 21:14:02 +0100 From: "Tom Thomson" To: "Madscientist" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within consent paradigm 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 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <005201c3418d$229b1990$0a2458d8@MNR01> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2003 20:14:02.0654 (UTC) FILETIME=[A55E6BE0:01C3419F] 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, 3 Jul 2003 21:07:40 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is very like a closed use (sender) group where new members can be introduced by any existing member. It is clearly very effective when a CU(S)G is what you want - not quite as effective as insisting all incoming email is encrypted with a key you provide (since sniffing the messages you receive will eventually provide enough data to deduce the consent string) but a lot simpler than that and likely to have far fewer deployment difficulties. Unfortunately, if a closed user group is not what you want, it's not very helpful because you can never receive mail from a stranger. The big problem with the consent paradigm is how to define consent in the non-closed case, and what mechanisms can then be used to express it and to police it: how do I express which mail arriving from a stranger has my consent and which has not? Tom -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Madscientist Sent: 03 July 2003 19:02 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within consent paradigm There are some simple and effective mechanisms for the scenario of identifying consent, though they may not be applicable in some cases. Here is one that is not a complete solution, but is very effective and solves the problem of expectation and identification in many of the most critical scenarios (such as children and grandmothers avoiding porn spam): Simplified: 1. The recipient issues a secret code (PL code) of their choice to each of the people they wish to communicate with. 1.1. The secret code _should_ be cryptographically secure but _may_ be anything unique enough to be effective for that user's purpose. 1.2. The user in this case _may_ be broadly defined as a group of users such as a family, or a special team in a corporate environment. 2. The user filters out / rejects all messages that do not contain the secret code in the body of the message. 2.1. The secret code becomes a mechanism of explicit consent. 2.2. In some cases (such as juvinile accounts) the ability to change the code or adjust the filtering may be restricted. 3. Trusted users who receive the code may freely distribute the code to other users whom they wish to include in the group. In this way the "authority" to transmit messages to members of the group can naturally extend to appropriate senders in a "viral" manner with very little administration. 3.1. Kids will naturally share their PL code with their friends. 3.2. Parents will share/register the code with teachers and extended family members. 4. If the PL code is compromized then it can be easily changed because a new code can be generated and transmitted to everyone in the group (or at least a large collection of them). If this mechanism is automated in some way then the system can be very secure an lightweight. 5. Attempts to send to members of this group withou the appropriate code can be used to detect attempted abuse - and these statistics can be used to drive other mechanisms such as black lists or statisitical training systems. This mechanism can be implemented right now and is extremely effective. The user's expectations are precise: If someone has the code I can hear from them. If they do not have the code I should not hear from them. The system's responses are precise: If the code exists then the message passes, if it does not then the message does not pass. (The PL code may be implemented with stronger controls such as placement in specific message headers or other specific rules, however it generally works well when simply included in the body of the message like a signature or some kind of "inside joke"). The system is extremely secure because anonymous senders are not generally able to extract or guess these PL codes and if they do then the codes are easily changed. The system can be extended to support legitimate mailing lists because special codes can be provided to the mailing list author at the time of subscription by the subscriber as part of the normal customization data provided by the user. One variant of this is to subscribe to the list using a cryptographic alias that can be turned off if it is ever abused. A more secure implementation would require the author of the list to include the code provided as part of the customized portion of the subscriber's messages (customization is often the norm these days anyway such as including the subscriber's name and so forth). This mechanism naturally extends a COT model (Circle Of Trust) because is a good example of that paradigm. COT systems provide for effective, lightweight authentication mechanisms without a centralized authority. This mechanism is not proprietary, not centrally controlled, represents very little cost, and does not preclude any other mechanisms that might also be enforced as part of a local policy. Extended implementation example: The mechanism can also be aggregated and driven forward within the systems of a given provider such that individual users might register their authorized codes with the provider (using some standardized format established by the provider), those codes could then be aggregated into a hash table, and message content reaching a border MTA could examine incoming messages against the hash tables during the SMTP conversation by scanning for the appropriate codes in the data segment before accepting a message. If the message does not contain the code and also does not satisfy an alternative policy evaluation then the message would be rejected and incident recorded as abuse forcing a period of rejections at the envelope level for some period of time (consistent with the local policy of course). A system such as the above might be implemented as a "Special Service" for families with children on the internet. - This means low cost, high value, and profit potential (so it's likely to be adopted), plus a significant impact on spam reduction. I recommend that this should be included in a suite of protocols and practices that are part of the final solution. Sorry for the length. I hope this is helpful. _M PS: PL = Private Listening, from a common radio meachanism (PL tones). I posted infromation about this in another thread I believe so I'm not repeating it here. PPS: We recommend and use this mechanism with great success, though I don't have hard statistics to show. Hopefully it is logically obvious how effective this solution can be in many scenarios. A TINY bit of automation can go a very long way with this one also. _______________________________________________ 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 Jul 3 16:09:32 2003 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 QAA04693 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:09:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YAO7-0008VE-3K for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:09:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63K93YJ032678 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:09:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YAO6-0008Uz-VS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:09:02 -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 QAA04676; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:09:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YAO5-0001Au-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:09:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YAO4-0001Ar-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:09:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YAO5-0008Rh-44; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:09:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YANS-0008Qa-N0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:08:22 -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 QAA04626 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:08:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YANR-0001AU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:08:21 -0400 Received: from earth.tc.umn.edu ([160.94.5.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YANQ-0001AR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:08:20 -0400 Received: by earth.tc.umn.edu; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:08:20 -0500 From: Steven F Siirila To: Mark McCarron Cc: Steve Siirila , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fifth Response Message-ID: <20030703200820.GA29835@earth.tc.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: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:08:20 -0500 On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 08:04:23PM +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: > > > >On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 07:05:56PM +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: > >> > >> >> (1) In the short to medium term > >> >> > >> >> Devise a method of reasonably reliably identifying bulk spam, > >> >> UCE or UBE and levying a charge on the senders (via any of their > >> >> upstream carriers, financial pain having the properties that it > >> >> does) which approaches that of any other method of commercial > >> >> or non-private bulk message delivery and most of the TECHNICAL > >> >> NETWORKING problems associated with spam - which are almost > >> >> entirely due intractable volumes of traffic - would rapidly > >> >> disappear. > >> >> > >> >> Mark's Response: > >> >> > >> >> The problem with this suggestion is that spammers are difficult to > >> >> trace and even when traced there lacks the proper legal frameworks > >> >> to do much about it. > >> > > >> > > >> >Spammers are only difficult to trace because there has been, until > >> >recently, little incentive to trace them and no sanctions placed > >> >on any injection points (which certainly can do most of the > >> >necessary tracing if well configured) for failure to do so. > >> > >> > >> Mark's Response: > >> > >> No. The Internet crosses many legal boundries across the planet. With > >> anonymous connections such as those by proxy (SOCKS, HTTP, etc) and > >those > >> by extensive proxy chains, simply back-tracing a tranmission is a legal > >> nightmare. Imagine attempting to get server logs from 40 or 50 > >different > >> countries and then not even being guarenteed that the culprit is still > >> there at the end of it all. 'GIEIS' would eliminate the need for all of > >> this. > > > >So would simply requiring reverse DNS as well as a record indicating > >whether > >or not an IP address has been designated as an MTA. This would make all of > >the open proxies, hacked desktops, and dynamic IP ranges unable to send > >mail > >directly to a site's MX server, forcing them to use an ISP's SMTP gateway. > >What you would have left is legitimate MTAs (some of which may be open > >relays). > >This is essentially where we are headed at our site by putting these sorts > >of > >things into place gradually. > >-- > > > Marl's Response: > > I am afraid that would not work. Spammers would just use lists of > resolvable domain names. Also, some form of centralisation would be > required to maintain the list you describe. Another problem would arise > from sending authorisation requests cleartext over the Internet, these > could be intercepted and responded to allowing spammers access. This is > exactly what 'GIEIS' architecture eliminates completely. The centralization you refer to is easily accomplished via DNS records. "Authorization" is accomplished via simple DNS lookups much the same as we currently use DNSbl lists already today. -- 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 Thu Jul 3 16:13:33 2003 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 QAA04796 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:13:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YAS0-0000EN-Me for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:13:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63KD4Ij000883 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:13:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YAS0-0000EA-Ji for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:13:04 -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 QAA04788; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:13:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YARy-0001DX-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:13:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YARy-0001DU-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:13:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YARx-0000CE-64; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:13:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YARJ-0000Bj-V7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:12:21 -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 QAA04768 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:12:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YARI-0001Cq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:12:20 -0400 Received: from bay8-f52.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.52] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YARH-0001CZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:12:19 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:11:49 -0700 Received: from 213.104.228.175 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:11:49 GMT X-Originating-IP: [213.104.228.175] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: sfs@tc.umn.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fifth Response Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2003 20:11:49.0670 (UTC) FILETIME=[561AAC60:01C3419F] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 03 Jul 2003 20:11:49 +0000 Thankyou for your comments. My comments are in the body of the message below. This post refers to the 'GIEIS' system cueently at version 0.002. An update to version 0.003 will be carried out in the next few days. 'GIEIS' has an extensive list of systems to be added and they will appear as soon as the documentation can be written. The 'GIEIS' system can be viewed here at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. >From: Steven F Siirila >To: Mark McCarron >CC: Steve Siirila , asrg@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fifth Response >Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:08:20 -0500 > >On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 08:04:23PM +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: > > > > > >On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 07:05:56PM +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: > > >> > > >> >> (1) In the short to medium term > > >> >> > > >> >> Devise a method of reasonably reliably identifying bulk spam, > > >> >> UCE or UBE and levying a charge on the senders (via any of >their > > >> >> upstream carriers, financial pain having the properties that >it > > >> >> does) which approaches that of any other method of commercial > > >> >> or non-private bulk message delivery and most of the TECHNICAL > > >> >> NETWORKING problems associated with spam - which are almost > > >> >> entirely due intractable volumes of traffic - would rapidly > > >> >> disappear. > > >> >> > > >> >> Mark's Response: > > >> >> > > >> >> The problem with this suggestion is that spammers are difficult to > > >> >> trace and even when traced there lacks the proper legal frameworks > > >> >> to do much about it. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >Spammers are only difficult to trace because there has been, until > > >> >recently, little incentive to trace them and no sanctions placed > > >> >on any injection points (which certainly can do most of the > > >> >necessary tracing if well configured) for failure to do so. > > >> > > >> > > >> Mark's Response: > > >> > > >> No. The Internet crosses many legal boundries across the planet. >With > > >> anonymous connections such as those by proxy (SOCKS, HTTP, etc) and > > >those > > >> by extensive proxy chains, simply back-tracing a tranmission is a >legal > > >> nightmare. Imagine attempting to get server logs from 40 or 50 > > >different > > >> countries and then not even being guarenteed that the culprit is >still > > >> there at the end of it all. 'GIEIS' would eliminate the need for all >of > > >> this. > > > > > >So would simply requiring reverse DNS as well as a record indicating > > >whether > > >or not an IP address has been designated as an MTA. This would make >all of > > >the open proxies, hacked desktops, and dynamic IP ranges unable to send > > >mail > > >directly to a site's MX server, forcing them to use an ISP's SMTP >gateway. > > >What you would have left is legitimate MTAs (some of which may be open > > >relays). > > >This is essentially where we are headed at our site by putting these >sorts > > >of > > >things into place gradually. > > >-- > > > > > > Marl's Response: > > > > I am afraid that would not work. Spammers would just use lists of > > resolvable domain names. Also, some form of centralisation would be > > required to maintain the list you describe. Another problem would arise > > from sending authorisation requests cleartext over the Internet, these > > could be intercepted and responded to allowing spammers access. This is > > exactly what 'GIEIS' architecture eliminates completely. > >The centralization you refer to is easily accomplished via DNS records. >"Authorization" is accomplished via simple DNS lookups much the same as >we currently use DNSbl lists already today. >-- > Mark's Response: I think you are missing the point that it can be very easily bypassed. Its not secure like 'GIEIS'. >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 _________________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Jul 3 16:38:44 2003 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 QAA05301 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:38:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YAqO-0000qi-AZ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:38:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63KcGY9003263 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:38:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YAqO-0000qY-56 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:38:16 -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 QAA05289; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:38:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YAqM-0001re-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:38:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YAqL-0001rb-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:38:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YAq9-0000od-71; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:38:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YApZ-0000eh-Pk for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:37:25 -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 QAA05286 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:37:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YApY-0001rX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:37:24 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YApX-0001rU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:37:23 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19YApW-0005gC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 21:37:22 +0100 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam wi thin consent paradigm To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.7] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 82.69.7.27 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, 03 Jul 2003 21:37:22 +0100 > > Ok, guys. I'm sure that you both agree that the usefulness of this thread > has been exhausted. > Accepted. Apologies to group. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 16:49:34 2003 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 QAA05578 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:49:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YB0r-0001Ak-8R for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:49:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63Kn5Gs004501 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:49:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YB0r-0001AW-5X for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:49:05 -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 QAA05566; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:49:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YB0p-0002B5-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:49:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YB0o-0002B2-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:49:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YB0n-00018Q-Ha; Thu, 03 Jul 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 19YB0A-00017j-7z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:48:22 -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 QAA05510 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:48:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YB08-00029j-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:48:20 -0400 Received: from earth.tc.umn.edu ([160.94.5.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YB07-00029f-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:48:19 -0400 Received: by earth.tc.umn.edu; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:48:17 -0500 From: Steven F Siirila To: Mark McCarron Cc: Steve Siirila , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fifth Response Message-ID: <20030703204817.GA1105@earth.tc.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: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:48:17 -0500 On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 08:11:49PM +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: > >> >> >Spammers are only difficult to trace because there has been, until > >> >> >recently, little incentive to trace them and no sanctions placed > >> >> >on any injection points (which certainly can do most of the > >> >> >necessary tracing if well configured) for failure to do so. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Mark's Response: > >> >> > >> >> No. The Internet crosses many legal boundries across the planet. > >With > >> >> anonymous connections such as those by proxy (SOCKS, HTTP, etc) and > >> >those > >> >> by extensive proxy chains, simply back-tracing a tranmission is a > >legal > >> >> nightmare. Imagine attempting to get server logs from 40 or 50 > >> >different > >> >> countries and then not even being guarenteed that the culprit is > >still > >> >> there at the end of it all. 'GIEIS' would eliminate the need for all > >of > >> >> this. > >> > > >> >So would simply requiring reverse DNS as well as a record indicating > >> >whether > >> >or not an IP address has been designated as an MTA. This would make > >all of > >> >the open proxies, hacked desktops, and dynamic IP ranges unable to send > >> >mail > >> >directly to a site's MX server, forcing them to use an ISP's SMTP > >gateway. > >> >What you would have left is legitimate MTAs (some of which may be open > >> >relays). > >> >This is essentially where we are headed at our site by putting these > >sorts > >> >of > >> >things into place gradually. > >> >-- > >> > >> > >> Marl's Response: > >> > >> I am afraid that would not work. Spammers would just use lists of > >> resolvable domain names. Also, some form of centralisation would be > >> required to maintain the list you describe. Another problem would arise > >> from sending authorisation requests cleartext over the Internet, these > >> could be intercepted and responded to allowing spammers access. This is > >> exactly what 'GIEIS' architecture eliminates completely. > > > >The centralization you refer to is easily accomplished via DNS records. > >"Authorization" is accomplished via simple DNS lookups much the same as > >we currently use DNSbl lists already today. > > Mark's Response: > > I think you are missing the point that it can be very easily bypassed. Its > not secure like 'GIEIS'. Bypassed? Not unless you control the IP address in-addr.arpa delegation records as well as the domain name delgation records which correspond to the PTR records. Like I said previously, it would eliminate the problem we have today with open proxies, compromised workstations, and dialup lines being used to spam since none of those would have the required DNS records designating them as MTAs. I realize, like a lot of proposals, that there is an adoption period where such records which did not exist would have to be treated as "don't know", but as more ISPs adopted this, sites would eventually be able to block based on this record. BTW, this record could include a value containing the abuse email address to send abuse reports to as well. For example, a valid MTA on the internet would have the following DNS RRs: 3.2.1.10.in-addr.arpa. PTR mail.mydomain.com. mail.mydomain.com. A 10.1.2.3 mail.mydomain.com. TXT "MTA:abuse@mydomain.com" To indicate that all other IP addresses in this domain are NOT MTA's one might have something like this: *.mydomain.com. TXT "NOMTA" I would love nothing more than to shut down all of the open proxies and virus-compromised workstations out there... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 16:52:35 2003 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 QAA05821 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:52:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YB3m-0001Kr-7x for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:52:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63Kq68E005127 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:52:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YB3m-0001Kc-4g for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:52:06 -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 QAA05766; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:52:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YB3k-0002Ej-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:52:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YB3j-0002Eg-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:52:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YB3h-0001HW-H1; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:52:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YB3L-0001HF-Cq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:51:39 -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 QAA05704 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:51:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YB3J-0002EB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:51:37 -0400 Received: from law9-oe47.law9.hotmail.com ([64.4.8.19] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YB3I-0002DD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:51:36 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:51:05 -0700 Received: from 12.145.89.10 by law9-oe47.law9.hotmail.com with DAV; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:51:04 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [12.145.89.10] X-Originating-Email: [khirsch314159@hotmail.com] From: "Ken Hirsch" To: References: Subject: Re: [Asrg] The Solution To Spam - The First Response 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 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2003 20:51:05.0412 (UTC) FILETIME=[D23C6040:01C341A4] 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, 3 Jul 2003 16:51:19 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Kee Hinckley" > Identify verification is only part of the proposal I was responding > to. The other piece was verifying the good behavior of cert owner. > That requires a clearing house for complaints, an arbitration > process, I don't really expect that to be much of a problem. People are quite eager to give you free help to find violators and it's not expensive to put out spamtrap addresses. From what we've heard from ISP's, complaints are rare and they manage to handle those without huge expense. From all sources I've seen, the overlap between IP addresses of spammers and IP addressses of legitimate email is tiny. As long as problem M (below) is solved, there's really very little point in the certicate holder fighting revocation, since once identity is established everybody else can use it to make their own determination as to whether to accept mail from them. Problem M (Multiple identities/certificates/IP addresses/domain names/etc.): > and a mechanism for ensuring that the same person doesn't > pop up under a different name (which is a different sort of > verification problem, as you point out). That's where I'd expect the > expense to come. This is key. But I think it is necessary for any permanent solution to the spam problem. Everything else I've seen proposed is either a temporary fix in the spam arms race or is something (such as RMX) that would only be useful if used in conjunction with something that solves problem M. > Never mind the question of how you certify someone in a country that > doesn't have as codified a banking and company registration system as > those where most SSL certs are issued. This is a good question. I would hope that any people on the list with knowledge about how CA's operate, especially internationally, would come forward. Do you have any comments about Problem M? I notice that there is a pbaker at VERISIGN.com. My earlier proposal about getting CAs more or less directly involved in the spam problem might be misguided. As long as they can verify identity (in the strong way, solving Problem M), then other organizations can build on that to solve the spam problem. The essence of my earlier proposal: (1) mail servers can accept mail (without challenge-response) only if it is verified at either at the server level or the individual message level. There are already technologies to do this (SSL client certificates, IP-lookups to a verifying organization, S/MIME signatures, etc.). The method must have a reliable, short chain to a responsible organization or individual with strong identity (see Problem M). It is not necessary that everyone choose the same method. (2) mail that cannot be so verified must be subject to challenge-response authentication. Conjecture: It might be possible to grandfather-in existing SMTP servers that are known to be legitimate. But the fact that there are soooo many SMTP servers is a problem. Not only it in cumbersome to manage so many millions of items, more importantly it is hard to even gather the data about who is sending. You may never have received a message from fredsgrocery.com, but it may well have a legimate automated mailing system. (Obviously challenge-response is mostly a problem with mailing lists and other automated mail systems.) If you could find out all SMTP servers with a good reputation, you could arrange to verify them by looking up, say, 63.10.45.12.presumedinnocent.org. But it is critical that this NOT apply to new/unknown servers and it would be subject to easy revocation. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 16:59:34 2003 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 QAA06070 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:59:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YBAY-0001WI-8w for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:59:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63Kx6KP005836 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:59:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YBAY-0001W3-5l for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:59:06 -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 QAA06024; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:59:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YBAV-0002Vx-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:59:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YBAV-0002Vu-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:59:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YBAT-0001Ss-01; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:59:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YBAP-0001SV-RS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:58:57 -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 QAA06011 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:58:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YBAN-0002Vb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:58:55 -0400 Received: from mnr1.microneil.com ([216.88.36.96]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YBAN-0002V0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:58:55 -0400 Received: by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix, from userid 93) id 9638329C06C; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:58:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MicroNeil.com (mail.microneil.com [216.88.36.161]) by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C3FB29C06B for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:58:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MNR01 [216.88.36.10] by MicroNeil.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.05) id A8D394C6013A; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:57:55 -0400 From: "Madscientist" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within consent paradigm Message-ID: <008301c341a5$c6ca6cb0$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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 In-Reply-To: <3F048993.80308@garbagedump.com> Importance: Normal X-Declude-Spoolname: D98d313a.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: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:57:55 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The solution "appears" to be client side, however a bit of automation can provide for a great deal of leverage as we move from the client toward the "center" of the network. In practical terms, if the client moves from job to job, they might take their secrets with them since the secrets allow them to send messages to their contacts. (If they maintain their ISP in the move and the ISP provides facilities to support this mechanism then there may be no change at all). Supposing an individual moves entirely from one place to another (ISP, job, everything), they would simply cary their secrets with them and then broadcast their new secret (or the old one) with their new address to all of their other group members. This would allow the group members to send messages back to them. With some simple protocols this entire process could be automated. For example, the moving group member caries with them their collection of secrets. The secrets allow them to send message to their peers in the circle of trust. When the moving member reaches their location, they broadcast their old secret and email address along with a request for change/addition which includes their new secret and email address. Other members in the group receiving this request (as authorized by the correct use of the shared secret) can then update their address books (or server provided services and directory systems) with the new data. As a result they are now able to communicate with the moved member without any problems and without intervention. ... This mechanism cannot be abused because broadcasting this request only updates the members secrets so that they may, if they wish, send messages to you. The automation does not provide a mechanism for a third party to open access to the group... only a member of the group can do that.... and, if that member abuses that privelege then it is easy for the group to expell that member from the Circle Of Trust and silence them... In general this mechanism can be deployed in phases so that it can easly support a mix of early adopters and eventually defacto standards for automation... It can start as a client side solution by convention only. At the next level there may be automation in the MUA. At the next level the provider may make facilities available at the MDA. At the next level the provider may aggregate user policies for filtering at the MTA (This is where real pay-offs start). The users can effectively manage their own secrets because their groups are small. A user who is a member of 5 groups would have 5 secrets. Only members of the group need know the secret (excluding the provider who would know for the purpose of applying filters). If extended to subscription services, each subscriber record would have a single additional field containing that user's secret - not much more difficult than storing their email address and any other data they may need. This mechanism is only one part of a more comprehensive solution, but if it were pushed to it's limits then the proliferation of secrets would not be a problem because the workload is naturally distributed among the users with each replicating and managing only those secrets they need. A few simple protocols can coordinate any automation between these users and the messages for that purpose could easily be transmitted in-band. One way of looking at this is that the available computing and human resource scales almost linearly with the complexity of the system. In general you would have some number of secrets equal to or less than the number of email addresses you correspond with because collections of email addresses (a group) would normally be associated with a single shared secret. This only changes when an email address belongs to more than one group if for some reason you need to differentiate your secrets for that user. The collective system of individual nodes organizes the complexity naturally as each node keeps track of it's own context within the whole. (There are a number of advanced mechanisms that can also be applied which allow for some third party authentication within a COT but I don't want to stray into that and dilute the conversation.) _M >-----Original Message----- >From: C. Wegrzyn [mailto:wegrzyn@garbagedump.com] >Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 3:53 PM >To: Madscientist >Cc: asrg@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining >spam within consent paradigm > > >True. The problem is that without some kind of management scheme you >might just find yourself having too many little secrets all over the >place. And should you go from job to job or ISP to ISP how would this >work? Is this a client side solution? > >Chuck > >Madscientist wrote: > >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: C. Wegrzyn [mailto:wegrzyn@garbagedump.com] >>> >>> >> >> >> >>>Seems like a lot of what you get with a cert. This is almost the >>>approach I took with the design I did. I can tell you it works >>>and works >>>well. >>> >>>Chuck Wegrzyn >>> >>> >>> >> >>Thanks for that. The thing I feel most strongly about concerning this >>type of "consent" and/or "identity" mechanism is that certification >>mechanism should be open, decentralized, and entirely in the >control of >>the end users. Unlike certs, which usually require some centralize >>authority for a signature, simple shared secrets can be created and >>destroyed entirely at the behest of the user groups involved and >>require no cost beyond that effort. >> >>(It is possible to have certs signed by some elected member of the >>group, or to self sign, or to elect some local authority for >the local >>COT, however the entire cert discussion tends to add unnecessary >>complexity I think.) >> >>_M >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 Jul 3 18:08:14 2003 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 SAA09468 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 18:08:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YCF1-0004qg-Fj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:07:47 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63M7lRQ018634 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 18:07:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YCF1-0004qT-Bk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:07:47 -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 SAA09232; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 18:07:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YCEy-0005AN-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:07:44 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YCEx-0005AK-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:07:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y6WH-00054c-Du; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:01:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y6VQ-0004r9-Fx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:00:20 -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 MAA19956 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:00:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y6VP-0001KP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:00:19 -0400 Received: from bay8-f90.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.90] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y6VO-0001JS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:00:18 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 08:59:35 -0700 Received: from 62.252.128.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:59:35 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: 03 Jul 2003 15:59:35.0736 (UTC) FILETIME=[19939B80:01C3417C] Subject: [Asrg] Re: 'GIEIS' - The Fourth Response (Esa Laitinen) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 03 Jul 2003 15:59:35 +0000 This post refers to the 'GIEIS' system. This can be viewed at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Esa, I will be in Tampere in two weeks time to discuss 'GIEIS' with potential buyers. ;-) It may be illegal to port scan from Finland, however, it is not illegal to port scan from outside of Finland. Finland's laws only apply within its own legal jurisdiction. I can quite legally conducts scans from other countries. Mark McCarron. >Message: 18 >Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 09:13:38 +0300 >From: Esa Laitinen >To: asrg@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fourth Response > >This is a MIME-formatted message. If you see this text it means that your >E-mail software does not support MIME-formatted messages. > >--=_laitinen.org-10615-1057212818-0001-2 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Disposition: inline >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > >On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:28:51AM +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: > > It is worth addressing. A port scan only tests for basic security >and=20 > > access to a system. It is hardly a physical assault, also, coming from >a= >=20 > > trusted domain everyone would be quite aware it was not a breach attempt >= >on=20 > > their systems. Since these scans would be sent clear text across the >web= >=20 > > anyone with a little knowledge could analyse them. If there was >anything= >=20 > > suspisious it would be repoted instantly all over the world. > >Nevertheless port scanning is illegal in some parts of the world, with=20 >convictions to back the claim (decision of Finnish Supreme Court, case=20 >number KKO:2003:36). > >Welcome to Finland after you've started your large scale scanning ;-) > _________________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Jul 3 18:12:34 2003 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 SAA10716 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 18:12:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YCJB-0005lJ-DV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:12:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63MC5bQ022143 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 18:12:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YCJB-0005l4-9l for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:12:05 -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 SAA10656; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 18:12:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YCJ8-0005VO-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:12:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YCJ7-0005VL-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:12:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YCJ8-0005fk-M8; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:12:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YCIy-0005eu-UD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:11:52 -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 SAA10635 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 18:11:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YCIw-0005VH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:11:50 -0400 Received: from mnr1.microneil.com ([216.88.36.96]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YCIv-0005V8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:11:49 -0400 Received: by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix, from userid 93) id 7875329C06E; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 18:11:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MicroNeil.com (mail.microneil.com [216.88.36.161]) by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3541E29C06C; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 18:11:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MNR01 [216.88.36.10] by MicroNeil.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.05) id A9DA954400F4; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:10:34 -0400 From: "Madscientist" To: "'Tom Thomson'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within consent paradigm Message-ID: <008601c341af$ecfde3d0$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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-Declude-Spoolname: Da9da0f4.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: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 18:10:34 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >-----Original Message----- >From: Tom Thomson [mailto:tthomson@neosinteractive.com] >Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 4:08 PM >To: Madscientist; asrg@ietf.org >This is very like a closed use (sender) group where new >members can be introduced by any existing member. It is >clearly very effective when a CU(S)G is what you want - not >quite as effective as insisting all incoming email is >encrypted with a key you provide (since sniffing the messages >you receive will eventually provide enough data to deduce the >consent string) but a lot simpler than that and likely to have >far fewer deployment difficulties. > >Unfortunately, if a closed user group is not what you want, >it's not very helpful because you can never receive mail from >a stranger. > >The big problem with the consent paradigm is how to define >consent in the non-closed case, and what mechanisms can then >be used to express it and to police it: how do I express >which mail arriving from a stranger has my consent and which has not? It is definitely a closed use mechanism. However, with a few tricks, it can also be extended to provide some solutions for the anonymous case. One way this can happen is based on policy exchange. This is a mechanism by which you may accept certain policy decisions from certain members of your COT. This provides a generalized mechanism for members to introduce classes of anonymous users. For example, user a has a policy to accept messages sourced from sources X, Y, and Z where the sources might be defined as MTAs, or some combined metric that is easily identifiable based on "normal" network properties or message headers. User a and user b are members of a COT and have a reciprocal agreement to accept "white-list" policies. An anonymous user from system X sends a message to user b (who does not have a policy for system X at this time). User b requests a validation of the new sender from user a (or some other peer it the COT). User a (more specifically their agent) returns a rating of the sending system X indicating that X should be white listed. User b (the agent) accepts the policy and makes it local, then accepts the message. In a closed group system, some set of policies defining other mechanisms will have to be in place to allow for the anonymous case. With the above extension the work load of establishing and maintaining policies can be dramatically diminished because that work is distributed across the entire user base. In this way the COT mechanism at work in the closed group system can naturally extend to leverage policy decisions on a wide range of systems. Work that we've been doing with Message Sniffer suggests strongly that the majority of policy decisions are identical across wide groups of users. This would allow for a collective black list and white list to stabilize and act as a basis for a common policy. Groups or users with different policies can map local exceptions to the common group to manage the next largest group of policy decisions. The smallest group of policy decisions which are entirely unique for small groups or individual users can then be managed very closely to the MUA or at the MDA level. In practice the anonymous policies for a particular user would be aggregated by the provider into a common policy for a group of users based on the similarities of their local policies. Differences between individual users and their assigned policy group would be mapped as exceptions. In the same way, super groups of policies might be established out of smaller groups, and ultimately a master policy for the provider would be aggregated from those. The number of levels in this network of policy groups would be determined by the resources assigned by the provider. It is also important to note that the organization of the policy aggregation system can be entirely separate from the organization of the network of closed groups. This allows providers to implement any scale of policy aggregation from none, to a broad collaborative network, and allows the deployment of this "service" to be driven by market forces. For the ISP, providing this service is a value added benefit and so is likely to gain market share for them as their users will experience better protection from abuse with less work. In addition, by applying aggregated white/black list policies at their border MTAs they can save significant resources. In very large providers where there are likely to be a broad number of policies, intermediate MTAs or MDAs could process individual policies for specific groups of users who's local policies are close to those groups. This further reduces the service costs of the provider since the message traffic naturally flows toward systems serving users who wish to receive the traffic and is naturally blocked from the others (reducing infrastructure costs). A sufficiently advanced system might also implement a mechanism to internally migrate a user's connection point to the appropriate MDA(s) based on their policy proximity. A further refinement (which we recommend) is for providers (or segments within large providers or organizations) to establish COT groups to share policies and abuse statistics (based on attempted violations to those policies). With this mechanism, ISPs with similar policies could divide the work of detecting abuse, and aggregate the work of rejecting abuse. This moves quickly beyond spam to wit: ISP c and ISP d have an established COT between them and have local policies which accept threat rejection policies from eachother. ISP c begins to see worm delivery attempts from external network q and establishes a policy to block that network at the gateway routers until the abuse subsides. Since this is a threat detection ISP c broadcast the new policy to the members of it's COT and those with accpetance policies implement the same policy, effectively disconnecting network q from their segment of the Internet. ISP d is protected from the threat even before they have seen the first arrival of the malware as are all other ISPs in that COT with similar policies. COT policies based on this model can be managed automatically and securely through fairly simple rules governing cellular automata, with local automata controlled by local hard policies and driven by the effects of aggregated policies which in turn are driven by end user policies. --- Attacks to this system are rejected by collaborative detection and collective action. If a member of a COT abuses the policies of a peer then that peer will "distrust" the member and reject them as a matter of local policy. Other members of the COT _may_ decide to automatically reject the abuser, or may trigger that decision based on some threshold of reports from peers in the COT... but in the end, the abuser is rejected by the COT so that abuse is rejected. This prevents any attempts to poison the groups policies since membership is driven by consensus and radical differences from that consensus mean rejection from the group. Ultimately the decision to accept or reject a member from a COT is determined by the local policies of the members and the proximity of the individual's policies to those of the other members in the group. The dynamic effects of an open COT model like this are that member systems will naturally aggregate in COTs that have like policies, and that changes in local policies will force changes in memebership thus reducing or eliminating the opportunity for abuse, and consistently driving toward an organization where the broadest leverage of common policies can be achieved. Since the model has no central governing agency the deployment of the model can be driven by it's effectiveness alone, and the potential for abuse by the agency, or abuse of the agency as an attack on the system is eliminated. Since the system provides a significant net savings in bandwidth and services costs there should be no need to address economic models or increase the costs of access to the network. We can continue to have a Internet where the cost of access maintains parity with the cost of the infrastructure so that it can remain widely available and "almost free". Once wide deployment of this system is adopted the concept of spam would likely be eliminated since there would be very few systems available to that form of abuse... The amount of spam that did continue would be isolated and minimized so that it's effects would not be generally important. Intermediate levels of deployment provide strongly accellerated performance as participation levels increase. There is also a strong benefit to this model in that the end user is ultimately in control of the content they receive. To the extent allowed by the provider's local policies, each user could receive their own mix of anonymous messages based on their own policies and the mechanisms available to them. The architecture itself does not establish any limitations beyond those imposed by the available participants and service capabilities. There is also no strict definition of the mechanisms driving these policies. This means that the system can adapt as new mechanisms are devised, and that it can be implemented with the tools that are currently available. A typical policy using current technologies would contain a combination of black list entries, white list entries, and heuristics which make use of other mechanisms such as virus detection engines, RBLs, content filters, abuse statistics as posted by peers in the COT, and adoption policies regarding peer policy recommendations. I realize that now I've essentially written a paper on this (with some missing details). Sorry for the length. _M _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 19:46:54 2003 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 TAA26951 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 19:46:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YDmS-0002aL-Ii for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 19:46:24 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63NkOQ2009927 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 19:46:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YDkO-0002Bz-B5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 19:44:16 -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 TAA25460 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 19:27:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YD35-0000Dc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:59:31 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YCs2-0006xn-07 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:48:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YCeM-00063P-AD for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:33:58 -0400 Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:33:58 -0400 Message-ID: <20030703223358.4508.12706.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Subject: ietf.org mailing list memberships reminder From: mailman-owner@www1.ietf.org To: asrg-web-archive@ietf.org X-No-Archive: yes X-Ack: no Sender: mailman-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mailman-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mailman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk There was an error in the last monthly reminder, in that the NOTE WELL statement (below) was not included. Therefore, the reminder is being sent out again. This is a reminder, sent out once a month, about your ietf.org mailing list memberships. It includes your subscription info and how to use it to change it or unsubscribe from a list. You can visit the URLs to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. In addition to the URL interfaces, you can also use email to make such changes. For more info, send a message to the '-request' address of the list (for example, asrg-request@ietf.org) containing just the word 'help' in the message body, and an email message will be sent to you with instructions. *************************************************************************** Note Well All statements related to the activities of the IETF and addressed to the IETF are subject to all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026, which grants to the IETF and its participants certain licenses and rights in such statements. Such statements include verbal statements in IETF meetings, as well as written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are addressed to * the IETF plenary session, * any IETF working group or portion thereof, * the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG, * the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB, * any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any working group or design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF auspices, * the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function Statements made outside of an IETF meeting, mailing list or other function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF activity, group or function, are not subject to these provisions. *************************************************************************** If you have questions, problems, comments, etc, send them to mailman-owner@www1.ietf.org. Thanks! Passwords for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org: List Password // URL ---- -------- asrg@ietf.org wasene https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/options/asrg/asrg-web-archive%40ietf.org From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 20:11:57 2003 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 UAA27796 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 20:11:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YEAi-0004i8-4d for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:11:28 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h640BS8J018102 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 20:11:28 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YEAi-0004hd-0H for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:11:28 -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 UAA27778; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 20:11:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YEAg-0005mv-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:11:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YEAf-0005ms-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:11:25 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YEAH-0004ea-Fj; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:11:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YE9f-0004eG-RM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:10:23 -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 UAA27762 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 20:10:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YE9d-0005le-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:10:21 -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 19YE9c-0005l6-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:10:21 -0400 Received: from ([192.168.0.1] helo=azza.com) by mail.azza.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #5) id 19YE98-0000Tb-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:09:50 -0600 Message-ID: <3F04C5F6.6030103@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] Nothing will stop spam??? References: <3F03E8F5.5040107@azza.com> 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, 03 Jul 2003 18:10:30 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 2:27 AM -0600 7/3/03, Selby Hatch wrote: > >> Under a consent framework, I instruct my incoming MTA not to accept >> email from anyone who cannot prove (through some defined method) that >> they have my consent to send me email. > > > The consent systems I see proposed sound a lot like a phone system > without a phone book. In order to find out someone's phone number, you > have to go out of band. > > I keep following the logic of consent, but I keep not finding the way > it's going to work--even if I ignore the UI issues, which I think are > insurmountable. > > Here's how my reasoning goes. > > The current email system allows people to send email to people they > don't know. That's a feature. Most people receive email from people > they don't know, or at least people who they didn't know they knew (e.g. > grandma on vacation, cousin at new address...). > > Any consent system has to have a way for someone to contact me and ask > for my consent. > > That message must contain sufficient information so that I can determine > if in fact I do want to talk to the person. > > In the case of a person that I don't know, that means that they will > have to provide a summary of *why* they want to talk to me. (E.g. > reporting a bug in your software, your system sent me a virus, our > company changed its name, this is your grandmother sending mail from a > cruise ship....). > > I see absolutely no way to provide that information without providing a > big enough window for spammers to send ads. > > What am I missing? I have proposed a message type that is limited to text only. (see https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05814.html) It is limited to a fixed number of characters, enough for a name/identification and reason for correspondence. No URLs are permitted. The only way to respond and give consent is by return email to the from email address provided. No one can ask for permission without a valid email address to provide a way for consent to be returned. A related issue is signing up for something, i.e. the FTCs do not call list. Usually a confimation email is sent back to the person signing up. The confirmation email usually contains a URL. Because of this, the request for consent token message cannot be used. At time an individual signs up, they would provide the consent token for the FTC to use when then sent a confirmation email. The FTC WEB site would require this along with the email address. This token be available on the recipient's MTA so that when the confirmation email was received, consent would be confimed. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 20:55:37 2003 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 UAA28932 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 20:55:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YEqx-0007uR-HP for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:55:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h640t73A030397 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 20:55:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YEqx-0007uC-DG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:55:07 -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 UAA28923; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 20:55:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YEqv-0006kY-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:55:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YEqu-0006kV-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:55:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YEqr-0007sB-U5; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:55:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YEqe-0007rM-0t for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:54:48 -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 UAA28907 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 20:54:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YEqb-0006jw-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:54:45 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YEqV-0006jl-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:54:40 -0400 Received: from [63.186.240.231] (account nazgul HELO [63.186.240.231]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2510613; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:54:18 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <002901c3419b$0c86e810$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> References: <002901c3419b$0c86e810$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> To: From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] Nothing will stop spam??? Cc: "'Selby Hatch'" , 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, 3 Jul 2003 17:04:48 -0400 At 3:41 PM -0400 7/3/03, Bob Wyman wrote: >not been granted. For instance, mail which meets all consent rules might >be delivered to the main inbox while mail which does not would be >delivered to a "gray" inbox that would need to be scanned from time to >time. Personally, I don't see how a "graybox" can be avoided... Most spam filters use it in one way or another. But we've already heard reports (e.g. with the yahoo/donotcall business) that people stop looking at them after a while. And in fact that's been our experience with our customers--even though we send them a periodic summary via email. But that's fine. I can deal with that as an answer to the non-ui problems I see with consent. In fact there is virtually no proposal anyone has made here (save the "replace the system" ones) that doesn't as it's heart depend on grayboxes and whitelisting. Unfortunately the first is vulnerable to volume, and the second to spoofing. >sending "Letters of Introduction." In the old world, you couldn't just >go off talking to anyone you wanted to. The expectation was that you >would be first introduced. If consent based systems become more popular, >what we're going to see is people doing things like writing letters of >introduction. For instance, I'll write an email saying: "Tom asked for >your email address today. He's a good guy and should be on your >whitelist." That sounds nice. But it negates a lot of the current benefits of email. (Immediacy. The lack of a need for an introduction...) > On a more technical line, we might see the creation of a >specific form of email message which is a "request for permission to >send." This would be something like a specific MIME type, perhaps XML >encoded, that would be recognized by consent based systems. One would >send a message in this form providing a self-introduction and requesting >permission to send. Of course, spammers might send such things, however, >my guess is that the response rates would be so phenomenally low that >they would soon stop doing so. But that falls back to my assertion that providing sufficient information to decide whether to talk to someone is going to be sufficient for a spammer to send an ad. Whether that ad would get any response is something I don't think we're qualified to judge. After all, most of us can't imagine why the existing ads get any response. But I suspect that: Will you accept mail from someone who wants to sell you Iraqi Most Wanted Playing Cards. would do just fine. Sometimes I feel like we're the janitors in Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons". -- 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 Jul 3 21:35:43 2003 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 VAA29460 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 21:35:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YFTl-0002rr-6D for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 21:35:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h641ZDYY011007 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 21:35:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YFTl-0002rO-2Q for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 21:35:13 -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 VAA29442; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 21:35:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YFTh-0007bT-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 21:35:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YFTh-0007bN-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 21:35:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YFTa-0002nO-1M; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 21:35:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YFTW-0002md-6P for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 21:34:58 -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 VAA29431 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 21:34:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YFTT-0007aq-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 21:34:55 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YFTS-0007am-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 21:34:54 -0400 Received: from [63.186.240.231] (account nazgul HELO [63.186.240.231]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2510725; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 21:34:55 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3F04C5F6.6030103@azza.com> References: <3F03E8F5.5040107@azza.com> <3F04C5F6.6030103@azza.com> To: Selby Hatch From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nothing will stop 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: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 21:31:41 -0400 At 6:10 PM -0600 7/3/03, Selby Hatch wrote: >It is limited to a fixed number of characters, enough for a >name/identification and reason for correspondence. No URLs are >permitted. The only way to respond and give consent is by return >email to the from email address provided. No one can ask for >permission without a valid email address to provide a way for >consent to be returned. That sounds like it has potential. >individual signs up, they would provide the consent token >for the FTC to use when then sent a confirmation email. The FTC WEB This would probably degenerate to a simple password, since anything else would require tight integration between the email client and the web browser (and a signup may occur when the email client isn't available, or even over the phone). That's not necessarily bad, but it should be recognized. The other issue here is that this requires modifying tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of web forms and their backend databases. Given that, it seems wise to make it possible to include the consent token in the email address, potentially as an option. (Although of course that won't work with the FTC site, since they decided to invent their own concept of what an email address looks like.) -- 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 Jul 3 21:35:43 2003 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 VAA29464 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 21:35:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YFTl-0002rq-66 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 21:35:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h641ZDtC011011 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 21:35:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YFTl-0002rP-2n for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 21:35:13 -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 VAA29441; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 21:35:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YFTi-0007bQ-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 21:35:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YFTh-0007bM-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 21:35:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YFTZ-0002nD-Jq; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 21:35:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YFTS-0002mY-7Q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 21:34:54 -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 VAA29428 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 21:34:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YFTP-0007ae-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 21:34:51 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YFTO-0007ab-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 21:34:50 -0400 Received: from [63.186.240.231] (account nazgul HELO [63.186.240.231]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2510720; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 21:34:51 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Ken Hirsch" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] The Solution To Spam - The First Response Cc: 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, 3 Jul 2003 21:25:33 -0400 At 4:51 PM -0400 7/3/03, Ken Hirsch wrote: >From: "Kee Hinckley" >> Identify verification is only part of the proposal I was responding >> to. The other piece was verifying the good behavior of cert owner. >> That requires a clearing house for complaints, an arbitration >> process, > >I don't really expect that to be much of a problem. People are quite eager >to give you free help to find violators and it's not expensive to put out >spamtrap addresses. So what happens when Roving gets a new customer who has a bad list and 100 people accuse them of spamming? The problem isn't getting people to complain about spammers. It's keeping potentially innocent victims from getting shot. That's where the lawsuits start flying. Just look at the wide range of BL's that exist. Clearly people have very different ideas of what constitutes a spammer. -- 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 Jul 3 22:02:33 2003 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 WAA00101 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:02:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YFtl-000500-Mb for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:02:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64225Vj019217 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:02:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YFtl-0004zs-GV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:02:05 -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 WAA00093; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:02:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YFti-0000P7-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:02:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YFth-0000P4-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:02:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YFth-0004xz-AD; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:02:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YFtG-0004u0-Jx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:01:34 -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 WAA00070 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:01:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YFtD-0000OH-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:01:31 -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 19YFtB-0000Nd-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:01:29 -0400 Received: from ([192.168.0.1] helo=azza.com) by mail.azza.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #5) id 19YFse-0000iR-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:00:56 -0600 Message-ID: <3F04E000.4070206@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] 4. Survey of Solutions - Consent Model References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030703153840.00b6cc50@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030703153840.00b6cc50@solidmatrix.com> 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 WAA00071 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 03 Jul 2003 20:01:36 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > I wrote up an document on the consent model=20 > (http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-consent-framework.html).= =20 > This is a rough draft, so please don't eat me :) Please comment on=20 > everything including any items that you think I extra. I will probably=20 > be changing it into a Internet Draft format soon. Below is the main par= t=20 > of the document. >=20 > ---snip---- > 4. Overview of Consent Model. >=20 > The idea for consent model within the ASRG was first proposed in=20 > [ASRG-CHARTER]: > "Therefore, we generalize the problem into "consent-based=20 > communication". This means that an individual or organization should be= =20 > able to express consent or lack of consent for certain communication an= d=20 > have the architecture support those desires." >=20 > This model assumes that users should be able to define what kind of=20 > email they want to receive - this is refered to as "consent" . "Lack of= =20 > consent" is either when no prior consent existing or the users revoked=20 > their prior consent. This model does not concern itself with defining=20 > what spam is =AD one person's spam message may be another's freedom of=20 > speech. Thus, we only seek to define a framework to let users grant and= =20 > deny consent, the rules under which this process is done is best left t= o=20 > the implementors and the users themselves. Yes. >=20 > In the consent model we have a SENDER and RECEIVER of email that=20 > communicate with each other. The messages between the SENDER and the=20 > RECEIVER are processed by MUAs and transferred by MTAs. The RECEIVER ca= n=20 > express his CONSENT POLICY to his MUA and MTA, which will enforce it fo= r=20 > incoming messages. This policy References to this policy . . . (not the entire policy) may be communicated to the SENDER under > specific circumstances, usually after being triggered by an incoming=20 > email message from the SENDER. This purpose of this communications will= =20 > be to inform the SENDER of lack of consent by the RECEIVER and to=20 > request a CONSENT TOKEN (if applicable). A CONSENT TOKEN is a piece of=20 > data exchanged between the RECEIVER and the SENDER, which will grant=20 > consent to the SENDER in accordance with the CONSENT POLICY of the=20 > RECEIVER. Examples of such tokens are C/R messages, hash cash tokens,=20 > e-postage, digital certificates, trusted sender seals (such as Habeas=20 > and BondedSender), etc.=20 Don't forget my simple keys. Upon recipient receipt of a valid CONSENT TOKEN, the > RECEIVER will grant consent to the SENDER to a period of time defined b= y=20 > the CONSENT POLICY. I'm a little confuesed by the previous sentence. Do you mean that the receiver will send a consent token to the sender and that from then on, the receiver grant consent to the sender? >=20 > A CONSENT POLICY of a specific end-user does not merely reflect his=20 > choices. It is also based on the CONSENT POLICY of the software being=20 > used, the organization to which the end user belongs, and the ISP. The=20 > software being used, specifically the MUA and the MTA, might support=20 > only specific types of consent rules which will be used in creation of=20 > the policy. CONSENT POLICIES from multiple users maybe combined to=20 > create a combined CONSENT POLICY for the entire organization or ISP. Th= e=20 > organization or ISP may also impose its CONSENT POLICY on its users and= =20 > subscribers. For individually owned mail boxes, the consent policy should be unique and specific to the mailbox owner. >=20 > MTAs when communicating with each other may share CONSENT POLICIES to=20 > facilitate communications. They may also pass CONSENT TOKENS between=20 > themselves in order to dynamically grant or revoke consent to the=20 > RECEIVER. Multiple ISPs and organizations may also shared CONSENT=20 > POLICIES in order to allow for interoperability between themselves.=20 > Standard CONSENT POLICIES may also be defined as Best Current Practices= =20 > (BCP) documents. Based on this, the actual consent tokens must not be part of the consent policy, otherwise these would also be shared between MTAs. This seems like a way of compromising consent tokens. >=20 > A CONSENT POLICY specifies the rules under which email is accepted or=20 > revoked. To enforce these rules the MTAs and MUAs may rely on various=20 > other sources of data being provided either in the message body, by the= =20 > SENDER or from third parties on the Internet. >=20 > Two aspects must be kept in mind. First of all consent systems may gran= t=20 > or revoke consent automatically based on the CONSENT POLICY. The policy= =20 > does not define consent only, it also defines conditions for=20 > automatically granting and revoking consent. Additionally, machines=20 > cannot perfectly reproduce human wishes and the CONSENT POLICY created=20 > might not match exactly what the end-user wants especially considering=20 > other CONSENT POLICIES such as the organization's and the ISP's. >=20 >=20 > 5. Taxonomy of Anti-Spam Systems Within the Consent Framework. >=20 > There are three basic types of anti spam tools within the consent=20 > frameworks defined in [ASRG-CHARTER]: > "Possible components of such a framework may include: > o Consent Expression Component: > This involves recipients expressing a policy that gives consent or=20 > non-consent for certain types of communications > o Policy Enforcement Component: > This involves subsystems within the communication system that enforce=20 > the policy. The overall framework may involve multiple subsystems withi= n=20 > the policy enforcement component. This may involve fail-open or=20 > fail-closed approaches. With a fail-open approach, the system must=20 > identify messages that do not have consent. For example, this may=20 > include approaches that determine the nature of a message based on its=20 > characteristics or input from a collaborative filtering system. With a > fail-closed approach, the system must identify messages that do have=20 > consent and only allow those to be delivered. For example, consent may=20 > be expressed by a policy, by a "consent token" within the message, or b= y=20 > some payment that essentially purchases consent or delivery rights. > o Source Tracking Component: > This component provides deterrence to parties that consider violating=20 > the policy by facilitating identification and tracking of senders that=20 > violate the policy. This may require non-repudiation at the original=20 > sender, the sender's ISP, or some other entities involved in the=20 > communication system." So far, so good. >=20 > 5.1. Consent Expression Component. > This category includes tools that let users express their consent=20 > choices. The choices that the user makes are then translated into a=20 > CONSENT POLICY which may be restricted by the software implementation,=20 > the organization or the ISP. Today there is no one comprehensive plan o= r=20 > language to express consent. Examples of such tools include: >=20 > Filter definitions >=20 > Spam tools configuration files >=20 > Blacklists >=20 > Whitelists All of them inadequate. >=20 > 5.2. Policy Enforcement Component. >=20 > This category includes portions of the MTAs/MUAs that enforce the=20 > CONSENT POLICY defined for the end user as modified by the organization= =20 > and the ISP's CONSENT POLICIES. These tools are used while the SMTP=20 > transaction takes place. Today there is no one comprehensive type of=20 > tool to do that, instead combinations of tools are used. Examples of=20 > these tools include: >=20 > Challenge/Response Systems >=20 > Reverse DNS checks (RMX/rDNS/etc.) >=20 > Lookups in Realtime Black Lists (RBLs) >=20 > Verification of digital certificates with a CA >=20 > Checking for trusted sender seals (Habeas, etc.) >=20 > Filtering (SpamAssasin, etc. >=20 > Lookups in known spam databases (SpamNet., DCC, etc.) >=20 > Blacklisting >=20 > Greylisting >=20 > Virus scanning >=20 Am I correct in my understanding that the above tools represent today's tools and not proposed tools? Do you have a section for listing proposed tools? > 5.3. Source Tracking Component. >=20 > This category includes various tools that track spam and spammers. Thes= e=20 > tools produce data that is used by POLICY ENFORCEMENT COMPONENTS for=20 > enforce policies; and by ISPs and LEAs for track down spammers. Today=20 > there is no single comprehensive standard for this. Example of these=20 > include: >=20 > Coordinated spam detection (DCC, SpamCop, SpamNet, Razor, etc.) >=20 > Open relay testing (MAPS, RBLs, etc.) >=20 > Detection of hacked computers (Dshield.org, etc. >=20 > 6. Standardization Considerations. >=20 > In order for the consent model to operate properly, we need to define=20 > the following items: > 1. Language for expressing consent. > 2. Machine readable format for CONSENT POLICIES > 3. Machine readable format for CONSENT TOKENS > 4. Protocols for sharing CONSENT POLICIES > 5. Protocols for sharing CONSENT TOKENS > 6. Protocols for different components of the consent framework to=20 > communicate among themselves. > ---snip--- >=20 Great start. Could you use any assistance? > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Jul 3 22:33:37 2003 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 WAA00639 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:33:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YGNo-0007Xi-Vj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:33:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h642X8Hw028990 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:33:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YGNo-0007XV-Sn for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:33:08 -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 WAA00629; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:33:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YGNl-0000fA-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:33:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YGNk-0000f4-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:33:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YGNh-0007Th-Fy; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:33:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YGNd-0007TK-9f for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:32:57 -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 WAA00620 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:32:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YGNa-0000ev-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:32:54 -0400 Received: from 000-236-470.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.162.251] helo=68.27.162.251 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YGNY-0000es-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:32:53 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030703223202.00bb2800@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: 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS (was Re: [Asrg] Re: 'GIEIS' - The Fourth Response (Esa Laitinen)) 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, 03 Jul 2003 22:32:27 -0400 Mr. McCarron, Case in point: On July 1st EU countries started charging VAT taxes on most digital transactions performed by non-EU companies to EU consumers. EU laws seem to apply here to companies outside the jurisdiction of the EU. At 03:59 PM 7/3/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >This post refers to the 'GIEIS' system. This can be viewed at: > >http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis > >Esa, I will be in Tampere in two weeks time to discuss 'GIEIS' with >potential buyers. ;-) > >It may be illegal to port scan from Finland, however, it is not illegal to >port scan from outside of Finland. Finland's laws only apply within its >own legal jurisdiction. I can quite legally conducts scans from other >countries. > >Mark McCarron. > > > >>Message: 18 >>Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 09:13:38 +0300 >>From: Esa Laitinen >>To: asrg@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fourth Response >> >>This is a MIME-formatted message. If you see this text it means that your >>E-mail software does not support MIME-formatted messages. >> >>--=_laitinen.org-10615-1057212818-0001-2 >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >>Content-Disposition: inline >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >> >>On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:28:51AM +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >> > It is worth addressing. A port scan only tests for basic security and=20 >> > access to a system. It is hardly a physical assault, also, coming from a= >>=20 >> > trusted domain everyone would be quite aware it was not a breach attempt = >>on=20 >> > their systems. Since these scans would be sent clear text across the web= >>=20 >> > anyone with a little knowledge could analyse them. If there was anything= >>=20 >> > suspisious it would be repoted instantly all over the world. >> >>Nevertheless port scanning is illegal in some parts of the world, with=20 >>convictions to back the claim (decision of Finnish Supreme Court, case=20 >>number KKO:2003:36). >> >>Welcome to Finland after you've started your large scale scanning ;-) > >_________________________________________________________________ >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 Thu Jul 3 22:33:41 2003 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 WAA00655 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:33:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YGNu-0007Y4-17 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:33:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h642XENM029010 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:33:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YGNt-0007Xp-TJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:33:13 -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 WAA00628; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:33:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YGNl-0000f7-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:33:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YGNk-0000f3-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:33:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YGNh-0007Tp-Rp; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:33:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YGNe-0007TP-F6 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:32:58 -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 WAA00623 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:32:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YGNb-0000f0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:32:55 -0400 Received: from 000-236-470.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.162.251] helo=68.27.162.251 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YGNY-0000er-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:32:53 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030703222848.00b6cc50@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: 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS (was Re: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fifth Response) 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, 03 Jul 2003 22:30:55 -0400 At 07:05 PM 7/3/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >[..] > >> > This is how current anti-spam systems work and I do not see any mass >> > public outcry about it. >> >> >>What anti-spam systems? When I look around my MTA, I see no anti-spam >>systems, and were I to discover that the nice people who handle my MX >>when the network here is down were to have instituted any on my behalf, >>I would have their guts for a Beethoven sonata. > > > >Mark's Response: > >The main internet backbone is crawling with anti-spam filter >software. All of it is based on heuristics. Heuristics is just an >automated set of rules that will identify potential targets based on given >criteria. Also, for those who handle your MX, I really don't think they >would care about your opinion unless you wanted to pay the bill for the >extra traffic. The "main Internet backbone" cannot be crawling with anti-spam filters since filtering is the function on the receiver's end only while the backbone facilitates communications between end points. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 22:39:38 2003 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 WAA00829 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:39:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YGTe-0008VJ-Fa for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:39:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h642dAIj032684 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:39:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YGTe-0008V5-Ck for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:39:10 -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 WAA00824; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:39:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YGTa-0000iV-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:39:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YGTa-0000iS-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:39:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YGTV-0008T6-Au; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:39:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YGT6-0008Sb-MU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:38:36 -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 WAA00808 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:38:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YGT3-0000i1-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:38:33 -0400 Received: from 000-236-470.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.162.251] helo=68.27.162.251 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YGT1-0000hs-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:38:32 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030703223345.00bb4e80@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Kee Hinckley , Selby Hatch From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nothing will stop spam??? Cc: Asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <3F03E8F5.5040107@azza.com> <3F03E8F5.5040107@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, 03 Jul 2003 22:37:47 -0400 At 12:08 PM 7/3/2003 -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote: >At 2:27 AM -0600 7/3/03, Selby Hatch wrote: >>Under a consent framework, I instruct my incoming MTA not to accept >>email from anyone who cannot prove (through some defined method) that >>they have my consent to send me email. > >The consent systems I see proposed sound a lot like a phone system without >a phone book. In order to find out someone's phone number, you have to go >out of band. > >I keep following the logic of consent, but I keep not finding the way it's >going to work--even if I ignore the UI issues, which I think are >insurmountable. > >Here's how my reasoning goes. > >The current email system allows people to send email to people they don't >know. That's a feature. Most people receive email from people they don't >know, or at least people who they didn't know they knew (e.g. grandma on >vacation, cousin at new address...). > >Any consent system has to have a way for someone to contact me and ask for >my consent. > >That message must contain sufficient information so that I can determine >if in fact I do want to talk to the person. > >In the case of a person that I don't know, that means that they will have >to provide a summary of *why* they want to talk to me. (E.g. reporting a >bug in your software, your system sent me a virus, our company changed its >name, this is your grandmother sending mail from a cruise ship....). > >I see absolutely no way to provide that information without providing a >big enough window for spammers to send ads. > >What am I missing? This is a big issue. Off the top of my head I can say that either this initial introduction can be done via a simple ASCII message like Gordon suggested in a different thread cutting down on spamming tricks, or the consent system can analyze the incoming message and graylist if it looks too suspicouis. But you are correct, this is a big issue that need to be looked at. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 22:44:32 2003 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 WAA00929 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:44:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YGYO-0000SV-4b for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:44:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h642i4i9001757 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:44:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YGYO-0000SG-1M for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:44:04 -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 WAA00904; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:44:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YGYK-0000k3-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:44:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YGYK-0000k0-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:44:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YGYL-0000QA-B8; Thu, 03 Jul 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 19YGXV-0000PO-Cn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:43:09 -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 WAA00863 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:43:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YGXS-0000j9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:43:06 -0400 Received: from 000-236-470.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.162.251] helo=68.27.162.251 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YGXP-0000j6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:43:04 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030703224058.00bb4e80@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Steven F Siirila , Mark McCarron From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 6. Proposals - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS (was Re: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fifth Response) Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030703204817.GA1105@earth.tc.umn.edu> 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, 03 Jul 2003 22:42:36 -0400 At 03:48 PM 7/3/2003 -0500, Steven F Siirila wrote: >.... >On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 08:11:49PM +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >... > > Mark's Response: > > > > I think you are missing the point that it can be very easily > bypassed. Its > > not secure like 'GIEIS'. > >Bypassed? Not unless you control the IP address in-addr.arpa delegation >records as well as the domain name delgation records which correspond to >the PTR records. >..... Keep in mind the DNS-Sec standards exist and ICANN is even implementing some of them. Security of the Domain Name System is being addressed. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 22:52:32 2003 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 WAA01085 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:52:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YGg9-000166-Bm for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:52:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h642q5B0004213 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:52:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YGg9-00015s-8u for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:52:05 -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 WAA01078; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:52:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YGg5-0000md-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:52:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YGg5-0000ma-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:52:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YGg5-00013z-5o; Thu, 03 Jul 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 19YGfU-00013k-5m for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:51:24 -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 WAA01063 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:51:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YGfQ-0000mP-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:51:20 -0400 Received: from 000-236-470.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.162.251] helo=68.27.162.251 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YGfO-0000mG-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:51:19 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030703224447.00bb2800@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] 4. Survey of Solutions - Consent Model In-Reply-To: <3F04E000.4070206@azza.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030703153840.00b6cc50@solidmatrix.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030703153840.00b6cc50@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, 03 Jul 2003 22:50:45 -0400 At 08:01 PM 7/3/2003 -0600, Selby Hatch wrote: >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >.... > >>In the consent model we have a SENDER and RECEIVER of email that >>communicate with each other. The messages between the SENDER and the >>RECEIVER are processed by MUAs and transferred by MTAs. The RECEIVER can >>express his CONSENT POLICY to his MUA and MTA, which will enforce it for >>incoming messages. This policy >References to this policy . . . (not the entire policy) The whole policy cannot be shared with the sender since it will simply allow the sender to guess what kind of messages can go through UNLESS the policy relies on trusted third parties such as CAs for consent tokens. >may be communicated to the SENDER under >>specific circumstances, usually after being triggered by an incoming >>email message from the SENDER. This purpose of this communications will >>be to inform the SENDER of lack of consent by the RECEIVER and to request >>a CONSENT TOKEN (if applicable). A CONSENT TOKEN is a piece of data >>exchanged between the RECEIVER and the SENDER, which will grant consent >>to the SENDER in accordance with the CONSENT POLICY of the RECEIVER. >>Examples of such tokens are C/R messages, hash cash tokens, e-postage, >>digital certificates, trusted sender seals (such as Habeas and >>BondedSender), etc. >Don't forget my simple keys. A consent token is implementation specific - can be a key, certificate, etc. We will keep this in mind. >Upon recipient >receipt >of a valid CONSENT TOKEN, the >>RECEIVER will grant consent to the SENDER to a period of time defined by >>the CONSENT POLICY. >I'm a little confuesed by the previous sentence. Do you mean that the >receiver will send a consent token to the sender and that from then >on, the receiver grant consent to the sender? The receiver gets a consent token and grants consent to the sender. Granting of consent may be accomplished by simply letting the email go through, or may require sending back a token. This sentence simply means that the receiver grants consent - whether a token is send back or not is implementation specific. >>A CONSENT POLICY of a specific end-user does not merely reflect his >>choices. It is also based on the CONSENT POLICY of the software being >>used, the organization to which the end user belongs, and the ISP. The >>software being used, specifically the MUA and the MTA, might support only >>specific types of consent rules which will be used in creation of the >>policy. CONSENT POLICIES from multiple users maybe combined to create a >>combined CONSENT POLICY for the entire organization or ISP. The >>organization or ISP may also impose its CONSENT POLICY on its users and >>subscribers. >For individually owned mail boxes, the consent policy should be unique >and specific to the mailbox owner. However it may be based or combined with policies of the ISP. >>MTAs when communicating with each other may share CONSENT POLICIES to >>facilitate communications. They may also pass CONSENT TOKENS between >>themselves in order to dynamically grant or revoke consent to the >>RECEIVER. Multiple ISPs and organizations may also shared CONSENT >>POLICIES in order to allow for interoperability between themselves. >>Standard CONSENT POLICIES may also be defined as Best Current Practices >>(BCP) documents. >Based on this, the actual consent tokens must not be part of the >consent policy, otherwise these would also be shared between MTAs. >This seems like a way of compromising consent tokens. Some tokens can be shared - like public certificates. >..... >>5.2. Policy Enforcement Component. >>This category includes portions of the MTAs/MUAs that enforce the CONSENT >>POLICY defined for the end user as modified by the organization and the >>ISP's CONSENT POLICIES. These tools are used while the SMTP transaction >>takes place. Today there is no one comprehensive type of tool to do that, >>instead combinations of tools are used. Examples of these tools include: >>Challenge/Response Systems >>Reverse DNS checks (RMX/rDNS/etc.) >>Lookups in Realtime Black Lists (RBLs) >>Verification of digital certificates with a CA >>Checking for trusted sender seals (Habeas, etc.) >>Filtering (SpamAssasin, etc. >>Lookups in known spam databases (SpamNet., DCC, etc.) >>Blacklisting >>Greylisting >>Virus scanning >Am I correct in my understanding that the above tools represent >today's tools and not proposed tools? Do you have a section >for listing proposed tools? Yes, this is listing today's tools. These three sections will list today's tools and proposals. >>... >Great start. Could you use any assistance? Definitely. There has been a lot of discussion much of which very relevant to this document. I might have missed things, so I definatly would appreciated a review of the document and any suggestions on style, order, spelling, content, anything! Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 3 23:11:38 2003 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 XAA01422 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 23:11:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YGyc-0002ht-Hg for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 23:11:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h643BAZV010404 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 23:11:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YGyb-0002hj-VM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 23:11:09 -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 XAA01415; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 23:11:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YGyY-0000vm-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 23:11:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YGyX-0000vi-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 23:11:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YGyS-0002Zf-T9; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 23:11:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YGy9-0002YD-Q7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 23:10:41 -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 XAA01406 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 23:10:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YGy5-0000vX-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 23:10:38 -0400 Received: from mnr1.microneil.com ([216.88.36.96]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YGy5-0000vK-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 23:10:37 -0400 Received: by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix, from userid 93) id A602729C073; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 23:10:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MicroNeil.com (mail.microneil.com [216.88.36.161]) by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7303729C071 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 23:10:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MNR01 [216.88.36.10] by MicroNeil.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.05) id AFF47AA300EE; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 23:09:40 -0400 From: "Madscientist" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 4. Survey of Solutions - Consent Model Message-ID: <00be01c341d9$b510c670$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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030703224447.00bb2800@std5.imagineis.com> Importance: Normal X-Declude-Spoolname: Deff40ee.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: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 23:09:39 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >-----Original Message----- >From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On >Behalf Of Yakov Shafranovich >At 08:01 PM 7/3/2003 -0600, Selby Hatch wrote: > >>Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >>.... >> >>>In the consent model we have a SENDER and RECEIVER of email that >>>communicate with each other. The messages between the SENDER and the >>>RECEIVER are processed by MUAs and transferred by MTAs. The >RECEIVER can >>>express his CONSENT POLICY to his MUA and MTA, which will >enforce it for >>>incoming messages. This policy >>References to this policy . . . (not the entire policy) > >The whole policy cannot be shared with the sender since it will simply >allow the sender to guess what kind of messages can go through >UNLESS the >policy relies on trusted third parties such as CAs for consent tokens. What if the policy included hinting such that a new inbound message which does not satisfy the policy is rejected, but the rejection includes a recommended alternative (a hint) for satisfying the policy, or indicates precisely what part of the policy failed. This would allow new anonymous senders to gain access via some means selected by the receiver without exposing the receiver's policy to the sender. For instance: IRRQ (Intelligent Retry Request) does this by making a small alteration to the SMTP protocol by rejecting the message with a temporary failure (indicating that the policy was not satisfied) and providing a one-time-password in the form of an email address that the sender may include if they are legitimate. This is a variation on "greylisting". ==> RCPT TO: <== Temporary failure, try again with .... Sender waits a nominal period of time for the retry .... ===> RCPT TO: <=== OK ===> RCPT TO: <=== OK This might be employed where the policy is for new unkown senders to implement IRRQ. Other policies and response mechanisms could be applied depending upon what is available and appropriate as selected by the end user and the provider of the RECEIVER. This IRRQ example is just a "for instance". All forms of this kind of system ultimately become some kind of challenge-response mechanism where the initial rejection is essentially a challenge, and the appropriate follow up is essentially a response. _M _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 00:53:35 2003 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 AAA03818 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 00:53:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YIZI-0001DW-7z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:53:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h644r8wD004672 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 00:53:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YIZI-0001DH-42 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:53:08 -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 AAA03809; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 00:53:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YIZF-00020r-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:53:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YIZE-00020o-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:53:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YIZA-0001BC-Uz; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:53:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YIZ4-0001Ak-Ar for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:52:54 -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 AAA03797 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 00:52:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YIZ1-00020c-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:52:51 -0400 Received: from bay8-f74.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.74] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YIZ0-00020H-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:52:51 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 21:52:21 -0700 Received: from 62.252.128.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 04:52:20 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.128.5] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Sixth Response Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jul 2003 04:52:21.0272 (UTC) FILETIME=[0D96F180:01C341E8] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id AAA03798 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 04 Jul 2003 04:52:20 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thankyou for your comments. My comments are in the body of the message=20 below. This post refers to the 'GIEIS' system currently at version 0.003= . =20 An update was carried out on the next 4th July 2003. Datails of the 'CAA= '=20 have be released as well as details regarding the 'CICFS' filtration syst= em.=20 'GIEIS' has an extensive list of systems to be added and they will appe= ar=20 as soon as the documentation can be written. The 'GIEIS' system can be viewed here at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. >--__--__-- > >Message: 2 >Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:26:58 -0400 >From: Philip Miller >To: ASRG >Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: The Solution To Spam - The First Response (Ken=20 >Hirsch) > >Mark McCarron wrote: > > > I must agree with Ken. It only makes sense to raise the current > > pricing schemes to remove illegitimate companies from the Internet, > > leaving only those with significant investments in the web business > > free to win back public support. > > > > By rasing the 'bar' of initial expenditure verus return we could > > eliminate a significant porportion of Internet fraud. 'GIEIS' will > > employ this technique as well as others. > >But how do we accomplish this without eliminating all free enterprise on >the Internet, where anyone with access can establish themselves as a >meaningful entity, rather than turning the Internet into what exists now >in broadcast television, where viewers are wholly passive entities with >no direct influence on the medium? >The bottom line is that requiring business registration creates a much >higher hurdle for starting new online businesses, and this is >unacceptable, seeing what the existing freedom on the Internet has given >the world aside from spam. > >-- >Philip Miller > > Mark's Response: This is the point entirely. By raising these standards we get better=20 quality companies able to deal with the pressures of a global market plac= e. =20 If we established a minimum of =A35,000 per year even, it would remove th= e=20 majority of Internet Fraud. These measures would only draw more business= es=20 and customers to web based enterprise. Free services would remain=20 uneffected as the majority of their costs would be well in 10 times the=20 excess of =A35,000 anyway. It does present a bigger hurdle for new busin= esses=20 to come online, however, there will be more credibility associated with i= t=20 when it does happen. Mark McCarron _________________________________________________________________ Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends=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 Fri Jul 4 00:56:30 2003 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 AAA03887 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 00:56:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YIc7-0001VI-K2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:56:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h644u33R005752 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 00:56:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YIc7-0001UL-FW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:56:03 -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 AAA03883; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 00:56:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YIc4-00022R-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:56:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YIc4-00022O-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:56:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YIc5-0001Pk-Pq; Fri, 04 Jul 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 19YIbR-0001PS-7e for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:55:21 -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 AAA03871 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 00:55:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YIbO-00021z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:55:18 -0400 Received: from bay8-f17.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.17] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YIbN-00021j-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:55:17 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 21:54:27 -0700 Received: from 62.252.128.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 04:54:26 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.128.5] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Seventh Response Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jul 2003 04:54:27.0100 (UTC) FILETIME=[5896C5C0:01C341E8] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 04 Jul 2003 04:54:26 +0000 Thankyou for your comments. My comments are in the body of the message below. This post refers to the 'GIEIS' system currently at version 0.003. An update was carried out on the next 4th July 2003. Datails of the 'CAA' have be released as well as details regarding the 'CICFS' filtration system. 'GIEIS' has an extensive list of systems to be added and they will appear as soon as the documentation can be written. The 'GIEIS' system can be viewed here at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. > >--__--__-- > >Message: 4 >From: "Ken Hirsch" >To: "ASRG" >Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: The Solution To Spam - The First Response (Ken >Hirsch) >Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:43:10 -0400 > >From: "Philip Miller" > > > By rasing the 'bar' of initial expenditure verus return we could > > > eliminate a significant porportion of Internet fraud. 'GIEIS' will > > > employ this technique as well as others. > > > > But how do we accomplish this without eliminating all free enterprise on > > the Internet, where anyone with access can establish themselves as a > > meaningful entity, rather than turning the Internet into what exists now > > in broadcast television, where viewers are wholly passive entities with > > no direct influence on the medium? > > The bottom line is that requiring business registration creates a much > > higher hurdle for starting new online businesses, and this is > > unacceptable, seeing what the existing freedom on the Internet has given > > the world aside from spam. > >I have only proposed registering SMTP servers. The extra cost would be on >the order of $200 per year. If you can't afford that, use somebody else's >SMTP server, as most people already do. This is not a significant barrier >to entry. > Mark's Response: I would propose the introduction of a significant barrier to prevent companies exploiting the Internet. 'GIEIS Registration' will accomplish that. 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 Fri Jul 4 01:04:33 2003 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 BAA04069 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 01:04:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YIjr-0001zj-T5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 01:04:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64543Mq007663 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 01:04:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YIjr-0001zW-QF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 01:04:03 -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 BAA04060; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 01:04:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YIjo-00027N-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 01:04:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YIjo-00027K-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 01:04:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YIjp-0001xS-5J; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 01:04:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YIj7-0001wi-Vg for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 01:03:17 -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 BAA04032 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 01:03:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YIj5-00026T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 01:03:15 -0400 Received: from bay8-f80.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.80] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YIj4-000267-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 01:03:14 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:02:44 -0700 Received: from 62.252.128.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 05:02:44 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.128.5] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Next Response Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jul 2003 05:02:44.0261 (UTC) FILETIME=[80EB8550:01C341E9] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 04 Jul 2003 05:02:44 +0000 Thankyou for your comments. My comments are in the body of the message below. This post refers to the 'GIEIS' system currently at version 0.003. An update was carried out on the next 4th July 2003. Datails of the 'CAA' have be released as well as details regarding the 'CICFS' filtration system. 'GIEIS' has an extensive list of systems to be added and they will appear as soon as the documentation can be written. The 'GIEIS' system can be viewed here at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. > >Message: 7 >From: "Tom Thomson" >To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , >Subject: RE: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fourth Response >Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 18:37:04 +0100 > > > I seem to remember that excessive port scanning was one of the issues >that > > was litigated in the new Zealand ORBS cases. > >I think the GIEIS theory must be that the ends justify the means - even if >we bring servers to a total halt while they respond to all these pointless >scans, that's OK because our hearts are pure - we are only trying to reduce >spam. > > Mark's Response: 'GIEIS' would not be bringing to a halt any network. Scans can be performed without such implications. > > I tried to read the GIEIS paper and I cannot understand what the >proposal > > is, what it is trying to achieve or what the prospect of a reduction in >spam > > as a result would be. > >I too looked at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis. Like you, I >have little idea what is being proposed (it might have helped if it had >been >written by someone with at least an elementary school understanding of >English spelling and grammar). Mark's Response: Please feel free to deduct 5% of my final result for improper usage of the english language. :) >Perhaps it is RMX without DNS (the >distributed DNS system being replaced for this purpose by the GIEIS Central >Servers), or something very similar to that, but it is not really clear. Mark's Response: This system is very clearly demonstrated and it is neither. >I >was particularly amused by the "encrypted ID code", which I take to be >invocation of the meaningless word-of-power "encrypted" rather than >anything >to do with encryption as understood by cryptologists. > Mark's Response: Nope, we are talking about cryptographic ciphers. > > Statements that 'intellectual copyright' is reserved do not lend >confidence, > > I am not aware of any such concept in US or international copyright law. > >I'm not at all surprised that you are not aware of something that does not >exist! > > > Copyright protects the embodiment of an idea, never the idea itself. >Even > > the EU doctrine of moral right of the author does not cover this. > >Perhaps the distinction between Copyright and Patent is lost on the author? > > Mark's Response: Perhaps the issue relating to software patents is lost on the entire industry. Consider this statement: "It can be argued that a patent requires a process or a method to be demonstrated before a patent can be issued and that software patents fail to do either. The process or method would be the physical transport of electrical pulses, not the code itself. The code itself is rather 'an abstract concept' and thus should not qualify for a patent. It would be similar to seeking a patent for a thought. This has come about due to the lack of technical understanding of patent office, its relation to the law and may result in the withdrawl of all software patents unless legal definitions are altered." Also the topic of the mailing list is Spam not Patents. 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 Fri Jul 4 07:21:37 2003 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 HAA23713 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 07:21:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YOck-0003Kz-Ne for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 07:21:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64BL6fm012828 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 07:21:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YOck-0003Kp-KG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 07:21:06 -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 HAA23679; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 07:21:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YOcj-0004Nq-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 07:21:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YOcj-0004Nm-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 07:21:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YObj-00039y-BF; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 07:20:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YObN-00038X-U8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 07:19:41 -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 HAA23555 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 07:19:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YObN-0004LM-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 07:19:41 -0400 Received: from usergg026.dsl.pipex.com ([62.190.174.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YObM-0004Kl-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 07:19:40 -0400 Received: from cenderis.demon.co.uk ([62.49.17.254]) by usergg026.dsl.pipex.com via TCP (with SMTP (internal)) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:19:04 +0100 To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nothing will stop spam??? References: <3F03E8F5.5040107@azza.com> From: Bruce Stephens In-Reply-To: (Kee Hinckley's message of "Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:08:05 -0400") Message-ID: <84y8zepmjm.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, 04 Jul 2003 12:18:53 +0100 Kee Hinckley writes: [...] > In the case of a person that I don't know, that means that they will > have to provide a summary of *why* they want to talk to me. > (E.g. reporting a bug in your software, your system sent me a virus, > our company changed its name, this is your grandmother sending mail > from a cruise ship....). > > I see absolutely no way to provide that information without providing > a big enough window for spammers to send ads. > > What am I missing? I don't think you're missing anything. One answer is that a consent system (or an alternative to the existing infrastructure) allows reliable separation of email that you know you want to receive, and the rest. As you point out, that leaves the unexpected message from your cruising grandmother along with the viagra ads, where you'll probably never see it. One possibility is the idea of introduction: your grandmother sends an email to some mutual acquaintance, who forwards it to you. Oops, that probably wouldn't work in this case, but it would work in the more normal case where nobody is travelling. I'm not convinced that would work, whether formalised in some way (so the MUA can provide help) or not. These chains of trust and things just don't seem to have been that successful, IMHO. Another is to introduce some kind of payment (estamps, or hashcash (proof of work), or similar). That still allows unsolicited ads, but it should reduce the insane volumes to a more acceptable level. A consent system can be used there, too, to indicate the cost of getting you to see unsolicited email. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 09:16:44 2003 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 JAA25447 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 09:16:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YQQB-0002U2-Sl for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 09:16:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64DGFLf009531 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 09:16:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YQQB-0002TV-PE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 09:16:15 -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 JAA25437; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 09:16:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YQQA-0005Gp-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 09:16:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YQQ9-0005Gm-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 09:16:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YQPx-0002Qz-K2; Fri, 04 Jul 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 19YQPS-0002Pu-ND for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 09:15:30 -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 JAA25393 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 09:15:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YQPR-0005Fn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 09:15:29 -0400 Received: from 205-158-62-67.outblaze.com ([205.158.62.67] helo=spf13.us4.outblaze.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YQPQ-0005FO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 09:15:28 -0400 Received: from 205-158-62-68.outblaze.com (205-158-62-68.outblaze.com [205.158.62.68]) by spf13.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with QMQP id C87961800137 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:14:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: (qmail 87885 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2003 13:14:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ws1-9.us4.outblaze.com) (205.158.62.37) by 205-158-62-153.outblaze.com with SMTP; 4 Jul 2003 13:14:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 79354 invoked by uid 1001); 4 Jul 2003 13:14:57 -0000 Message-ID: <20030704131457.79353.qmail@mail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.41 (Entity 5.404) Received: from [195.11.247.14] by ws1-9.us4.outblaze.com with http for hondin.degoot@programmer.net; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 08:14:57 -0500 From: "Hondin de Goot" To: asrg@ietf.org X-Originating-Ip: 195.11.247.14 X-Originating-Server: ws1-9.us4.outblaze.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] My apologies to this 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, 04 Jul 2003 08:14:57 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thankyou for your forbearance regarding my two or three postings here recently. By way of excuse, I would like to explain my reasons for making them. I was appalled when I saw the flood of energy and serious engagement with Carron's outright nonsense that a number people I know to be excellent network engineers put into carefully reasoned responses when he started posting to the RIPE anti-spam wg list, but not quite as appalled as I was at seeing how quickly he could then construct apparently meaningful - although, in fact, equally nonsensical - extensions to his buzzword edifice out of the quite undigested information he was thereby obtaining, mainly because it seemed to me that that ability could easily introduce, at this specific time, serious political impediments to at least some serious considerations of rational technical solutions. With the best will in the world it is not possible to describe the majority of today's politicians and leading citizens, etc, as being particularly technically literate. Equally, it is difficult to avoid the concluion that they spend a lot of time dealing with their various impossible tasks by clutching at straws. Because of our unfortunate, species-wide inability to perceive exponential trends until they resemble onrushing locomotives rather more than they resemble trends, now is the time when effecting solutions to the problem of spam is being rapidly co-opted into the sphere of the political rather than the technical. At such times, fraudsters of all varieties, from simple intellectual on up (or down, depending on your attitude to filthy lucre), are far more easily able to grab the attention of besieged legislators and others than in less stressful times, and some of them have the energy to attempt it. That they can sometimes succeed is evidenced by the numerous occasions when the US Congress (say) has been considering three or even four bills, each sponsored by different representatives acting, without personal comprehension of the subject, on "expert advice", some of it clearly received from highly suspect "experts", all addressing the same technological matter. And in such cases, those "experts" who can ALSO cloak their presentations in an ambience of business, legal and political attitudes and buzzwords (however shakily deployed) are often able to command a hearing that their technical theses alone should not objectively afford them. Of course there are many more examples of this than just those that can be found in the annals of the US Congress. The political process, even in the most disciplined of assemblies, is a highly fractured and unpredictable one, and only seldom a broad clear path to a rational outcome. From that point of view and from a perception that there might not be much time to spare, I decided to try to provoke Mr Carron into revealing the extraordinary paucity of his understanding of the Internet in relation to spam or anything else (even my cat, just from sleeping on top of the monitor, has managed to pick up rather more :) to as wide an range of genuine experts whose opinion was likely to be canvassed in various quarters as possible: it is by no means clear that bodies such as even the IETF have any assured authority in the midst of mass political hysteria, but the opinions of many of those associated with it will certainly be sought on an individual basis. Now that he has, in short order, told people like Phillip Hallam-Baker that they will need to acquire an understanding of networking technology in order to appreciate his ideas, implied that engineers of the calibre of Esa Laitinen are basically irrelevant Finns, dissed the elegant simplicity of Steven Siirila's inputs, and much, much more (including discomforting many with his PNW approach to "intellectual property"), all in a persisting archive that would be hard to assert had subsequently been hacked to discredit him, I'm satisfied he has been sufficiently "outed" (to borrow a technical term from another discipline) and will return to my life of alternately dozing and eating, as before. As an aside, and on the subject of archives, it has been pointed out to me that the full perspicacity of Carron's mathematical, chemical and physics insights (which will be clear to many reading here) can be found in the archive at http://web.archive.org/web/20000824014035/http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/16/giza.htm. The same material from his original ntlworld website is also available on web.archive.org, but in a rather less compact and easily read format. I suspect that those reading here will be rather less able to assess the egyptological quality of his thought, but it seems likely that a rough guess would serve as well. (The URL quoted above may need some manual concatenation to work). Finally, I would like to make a point about a core value (in the sense of its being extremely valuable to users) of the original design of the Internet: that of end-to-end connectivity. In terms of SMTP, that includes the ability to operate a server. However much use of the Internet has grown by numbers of hosts, users are users and what was of value to them 20 years ago generally remains of value to their successors today. Fairly recently I helped set up some mail servers for the associates of a tiny charity which, given the social value and overall cost of its work, is grossly under funded (how unusual). Because of the extreme sensitivity of much of their communication in terms of client confidence and the reluctance of non technical persons to deploy anything in the way of cryptography, the small but significant security enhancement that direct delivery of some communications to their own servers, rather than to their ISPs' disk based mail spools, can provide is of great value (and I'm sure that theirs is not an especially unusual case, in almost any context - personal, political, small business or institutional). In my opinion, any solution would be less than optimal if it involved sacrificing too much more of the already much-diluted ability to establish end-to-end connections or priced low budget MTAs out of existence (although I see absolutely no problems with punitively coercing them into compliance). This has been the first time in a decade or more that I have posted to a public forum and the first time I have ever done so using a pseudonym (it means "dog in the gutter" and is to be seen on many signs throughout Holland and parts of Belgium - often with a graphic resembling Mr Carron's musings - as an injunction to urban animal lovers). It's been more fun than I care to admit being vicariously rude to Mr Carron, and sorry about the pseudonym: loony-kook filter and all.... I'll go back to sleep now, using that faulty unsubscribe button - what's that they say about "third time luc -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search http://corp.mail.com/careers _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 10:03:37 2003 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 KAA26278 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:03:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YR9Z-0005p7-1j for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:03:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64E39VS022382 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:03:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YR9Y-0005os-Rr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:03:08 -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 KAA26247; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:03:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YR9W-0005rB-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:03:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YR9W-0005r8-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:03:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YR9R-0005my-Kf; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:03:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YR8i-0005mS-D0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:02:16 -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 KAA26232 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:02:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YR8g-0005qa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:02:14 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YR8f-0005qW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:02:13 -0400 Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h64E2Cch021638; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 07:02:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 07:02:12 -0700 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D22B9@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Steven F Siirila Cc: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Asrg] DNSSEC not deployable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 4 Jul 2003 07:02:11 -0700 > Keep in mind the DNS-Sec standards exist and ICANN is even > implementing > some of them. Security of the Domain Name System is being addressed. This is unfortunately NOT the case. Despite objections brought by VeriSign, the operators of the .de registry, the author of BIND and many others the IETF has refused to allow changes to the DNSSEC protocol to address the problem of deployment in large zones. These changes were agreed by the majority of the working group but blocked by one of the chairs. Unless the IESG decides to intervene to reverse this situation ubiquitous deployment of DNSSEC will not be possible using the IETF approved specification. There is a lot of work going on in ICANN that concerns the security of the root servers, but this is from an operations point of view. There is no DNS security work taking place in ICANN of the sort that would address the dependency of RMX type schemes. Regretably the situation is no better with respect to BGP security. This is going to get fixed, but it will take a couple of years before either the IESG is forced to back down from its current position or there is general agreement in the industry that it is time to take the DNS and BGP standards out of IETF process. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 10:32:48 2003 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 KAA28114 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:32:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YRbp-0007uD-FT for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:32:21 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64EWLv2030390 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:32:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YRbp-0007u5-Au for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:32:21 -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 KAA28078; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:32:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YRbm-00068g-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:32:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YRbm-00068d-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:32:18 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YRbV-0007sD-A5; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:32:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YRb2-0007ru-9y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:31:32 -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 KAA28072 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:31:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YRb0-00068J-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:31:30 -0400 Received: from 000-236-040.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.161.75] helo=68.27.161.75) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YRax-00068E-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:31:29 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030704102924.00bbed20@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , Steven F Siirila From: Yakov Shafranovich 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 Subject: [Asrg] Re: DNSSEC not deployable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 04 Jul 2003 10:31:02 -0400 At 07:02 AM 7/4/2003 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > Keep in mind the DNS-Sec standards exist and ICANN is even > > implementing > > some of them. Security of the Domain Name System is being addressed. > >This is unfortunately NOT the case. > >Despite objections brought by VeriSign, the operators of the .de >registry, the author of BIND and many others the IETF has refused >to allow changes to the DNSSEC protocol to address the problem >of deployment in large zones. > >These changes were agreed by the majority of the working group but >blocked by one of the chairs. > >Unless the IESG decides to intervene to reverse this situation >ubiquitous deployment of DNSSEC will not be possible using the >IETF approved specification. > >There is a lot of work going on in ICANN that concerns the security >of the root servers, but this is from an operations point of view. >There is no DNS security work taking place in ICANN of the sort that >would address the dependency of RMX type schemes. > >Regretably the situation is no better with respect to BGP security. > >This is going to get fixed, but it will take a couple of years >before either the IESG is forced to back down from its current >position or there is general agreement in the industry that it >is time to take the DNS and BGP standards out of IETF process. Thank you for pointing this out. Based on this information, does that mean that any type of anti-spam scheme that relies on the DNS system (RMX/rDNS/etc.) would be inherently insecure? Also, What exactly is the nature of the problem with the current DNS-SEC standard? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 10:43:34 2003 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 KAA28466 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:43:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YRmD-0000Y9-Oj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:43:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64Eh57C002107 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:43:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YRmD-0000Xu-Lg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:43:05 -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 KAA28453; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:43:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YRmB-0006Hp-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:43:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YRmA-0006Hm-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:43:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YRmA-0000Vd-8o; Fri, 04 Jul 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 19YRlv-0000Uk-OL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:42:47 -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 KAA28421 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:42:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YRlt-0006H6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:42:45 -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 19YRls-0006H2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:42:44 -0400 Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h64EgAmu000971; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:42:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200307041442.h64EgAmu000971@nic-naa.net> To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" cc: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Steven F Siirila , asrg@ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Asrg] DNSSEC not deployable In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 04 Jul 2003 07:02:11 PDT." <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D22B9@mou1wnexm02.verisign.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, 04 Jul 2003 10:42:10 -0400 Crap. Lies and Crap. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 10:48:31 2003 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 KAA28545 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:48:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YRr2-0001CZ-Hm for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:48:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64Em4Ge004613 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:48:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YRr2-0001CK-DI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:48:04 -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 KAA28535; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:48:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YRqz-0006LF-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:48:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YRqz-0006LC-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:48:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YRqy-00019E-Qu; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:48:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YRqD-00011K-W2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:47:14 -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 KAA28528 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:47:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YRqB-0006Km-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:47:11 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YRqA-0006Kj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:47:10 -0400 Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h64El9ch002833; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 07:47:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 07:47:09 -0700 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D22BB@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Steven F Siirila , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] DNSSEC not deployable 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: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 07:47:09 -0700 The allegation that I am a liar is actionable. I demand that you withdraw this allegation immediately and appologise. > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine > [mailto:brunner@nic-naa.net] > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 10:42 AM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip > Cc: 'Yakov Shafranovich'; Steven F Siirila; asrg@ietf.org; > brunner@nic-naa.net > Subject: Re: [Asrg] DNSSEC not deployable > > > Crap. Lies and Crap. > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 11:09:39 2003 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 LAA28948 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:09:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSBT-0002hU-5Q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:09:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64F9B6d010374 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:09:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSBT-0002hF-2R for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:09:11 -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 LAA28920; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:09:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSBQ-0006Wu-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:09:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSBP-0006Wq-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:09:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSBI-0002fE-T1; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:09:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSAW-0002el-77 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:08:12 -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 LAA28912 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:08:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSAT-0006WT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:08:09 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSAQ-0006WM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:08:08 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip70-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.70]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CFC5436C07 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:07:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:07:51 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal: Separate ISP(s) for "guaranteed delivery" of email Message-ID: <20030704110751.A10667@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> <20030630022018.A2266@m433> <20030702165715.A6542@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 Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 06:07:20PM -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, 4 Jul 2003 11:07:51 -0400 On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 06:07:20PM -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote > > How much do they care; 75 cents' worth ? It's their decision, just > >like with snail-mail versus courirer. > > No. That's a sender decision. I'm talking about a receiver > decision. And the problem is that if the receiver starts paying for > receipt of messages (e.g. to their sales line) then they are open to > a different kind of for-profit spam. Please re-read my original proposal. It includes the sentence... > The general public could join with free "read-only" accounts, with > the option of sending one-off messages for a low fee. Most customers of UPS/Fedex/Purolator are businesses, and have accounts with them. But individuals do use couriers occasionally when the need arises, and pay a one-off fee. The "Business ISP" is to be a "sender-pays" system. The sender *ALWAYS* pays for messages sent. The receiver *NEVER* pays for messages recieved. -- 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 Jul 4 11:10:30 2003 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 LAA28972 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:10:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSCJ-000303-Aj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:10:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64FA3Fq011525 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:10:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSCJ-0002zo-6g for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:10:03 -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 LAA28964; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:09:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSCG-0006Xj-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:10:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSCF-0006Xg-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:09:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSCH-0002xr-Qo; Fri, 04 Jul 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 19YSBM-0002fI-Am for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:09:04 -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 LAA28917 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:09:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSBJ-0006Wl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:09:01 -0400 Received: from 000-236-040.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.161.75] helo=68.27.161.75) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSBG-0006Wf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:09:00 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030704104913.00ba7728@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , "'Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine'" From: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: asrg@ietf.org, Paul Judge , Vern Paxson In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D22BB@mou1wnexm02.verisig n.com> 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] 6. Proposals - DNS Based - Security of DNS (was RE: [Asrg] DNSSEC not deployable) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 04 Jul 2003 11:08:35 -0400 We need to determine for the future consideration of all DNS based proposal the state of DNSSEC and its planned deployment. Since you are in disagreement and this is obviously not the correct forum for such discussion, especially when resorting to name calling, why don't we request a comment on this matter from the IESG, IAB or ICANN? Yakov At 07:47 AM 7/4/2003 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >The allegation that I am a liar is actionable. I demand that you withdraw >this allegation immediately and appologise. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine > > [mailto:brunner@nic-naa.net] > > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 10:42 AM > > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip > > Cc: 'Yakov Shafranovich'; Steven F Siirila; asrg@ietf.org; > > brunner@nic-naa.net > > Subject: Re: [Asrg] DNSSEC not deployable > > > > > > Crap. Lies and Crap. > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 11:15:38 2003 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 LAA29046 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:15:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSHB-0003EU-CR for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:15:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64FF5J9012421 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:15:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSHB-0003EG-8U for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:15:05 -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 LAA29030; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:15:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSHA-0006b5-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:15:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSH9-0006b2-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:15:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSH7-0003CM-B4; Fri, 04 Jul 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 19YSGy-0003Bw-To for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:14:52 -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 LAA29027 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:14:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSGy-0006at-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:14:52 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSGx-0006aq-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:14:51 -0400 Received: from [65.177.169.113] (account nazgul HELO [63.186.240.231]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2512076; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:14:45 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <3F03E8F5.5040107@azza.com> <3F04C5F6.6030103@azza.com> To: Selby Hatch , Asrg@ietf.org From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nothing will stop 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: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:14:03 -0400 At 9:31 PM -0400 7/3/03, Kee Hinckley wrote: >>individual signs up, they would provide the consent token >>for the FTC to use when then sent a confirmation email. The FTC WEB > >This would probably degenerate to a simple password, since anything >else would require tight integration between the email client and >the web browser (and a signup may occur when the email client isn't >available, or even over the phone). That's not necessarily bad, but >it should be recognized. The other issue here is that this requires >modifying tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of web forms and their >backend databases. Given that, it seems wise to make it possible to >include the consent token in the email address, potentially as an >option. (Although of course that won't work with the FTC site, >since they decided to invent their own concept of what an email >address looks like.) Sleeping on this I came up with some more issues (okay, I didn't sleep very well). 1. Like many systems, this ties in tightly with identity. If I move to a new ISP (or Comcast gets sold *again*) my email address changes. How do I manage notifying all of my contacts. Some people seem to think the address book model works, but I correspond with several orders of magnitude more people than are in my address book, and some of them I only send mail to every few years--I don't want to have to notify them all of a change, nor is it clear to me *how* I would notify them of a change without hitting the consent system again. It's probably technically feasible, albeit difficult, to do so if I know in advance of the change--but that doesn't always happen. Right now people struggle with simple things like transferring their address book, never mind transferring consent. A regular occurrence on wormalert is mail from someone to all of their contents with a brief comment like "sorry, just mailing myself a copy of my address book". That's how they do it--they put everyone in the to, including their new address. So. Without a persistent concept of identity, consent is rather transient to the recipient, never mind the sender. 2. If a consent token does degenerate to a password, then two problems occur. One, it can be sold along with your email address, just as email addresses are sold now. You've basically made it simple for someone to transfer your consent. the only way around that is to tie a consent token to the sender, which means complicated software, and a knowledge of what addresses will be used to contact you. (Again, I think people working on this should focus first on a URL scheme for whitelisting. E.g. whitelist:some-piece-of-information-identifying-senders.) Secondly, a single password doesn't contain information about what you've consented to. Did I tell them I want a receipt for my order, or that I want a daily advertisement? Note that the latter problem is what I see as a major failing of do-not-spam-me lists. How does a vendor know whether the presence of an address on that list applies to what aspect of an existing business relationship? And if it doesn't, then what's the point? They shouldn't be sending you email anyway. This isn't an issue with phone call lists because Sears doesn't call you up every day with a new ad, so you don't lose anything by putting yourself on a donotcall 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 Jul 4 11:19:34 2003 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 LAA29170 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:19:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSL0-0003Vp-G8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:19:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64FJ2wv013495 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:19:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSL0-0003Va-CA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:19:02 -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 LAA29138; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:18:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSKz-0006eT-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:19:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSKy-0006eQ-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:19:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSKy-0003Tb-Ep; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:19:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSKv-0003TL-Qw for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:18:57 -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 LAA29131 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:18:55 -0400 (EDT) From: william@elan.net Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSKu-0006eE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:18:56 -0400 Received: from sokol.elan.net ([216.151.192.200]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSKt-0006e7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:18:56 -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 h64Ci3la022749 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 05:44:03 -0700 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h64Ci2oG022745 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 05:44:03 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: DNSSEC not deployable In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030704102924.00bbed20@solidmatrix.com> 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: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 05:44:02 -0700 (PDT) The problem is not DNSSEC itself its that some people and organisations are actively blocking its deployment - and that includes both sides of as far issues at dnsop and namedroppers. And the term "rough concensus" or "most agree" does not even closely apply there, so that is why some are unhappy that WG Chairs are making decisions which may not have everybody's support. P.S. That above just my opinion as outsider not having participated and just based on archives and other docs I've read. I'll not go into this again and I think ASRG should avoid futher discussions about issues with current or proposed DNS standards - these are for other WGs and we have enough countroveries to worry about at ASRG. > Thank you for pointing this out. Based on this information, does that mean > that any type of anti-spam scheme that relies on the DNS system > (RMX/rDNS/etc.) would be inherently insecure? Also, What exactly is the > nature of the problem with the current DNS-SEC standard? > > 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 Fri Jul 4 11:26:36 2003 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 LAA29393 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:26:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSRs-00044P-5k for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:26:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64FQ8gi015644 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:26:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSRs-00044F-2E for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:26:08 -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 LAA29363; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:26:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSRr-0006jW-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:26:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSRq-0006jT-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:26:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSRl-00042M-NF; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:26:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSRK-000429-2m for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:25:34 -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 LAA29345 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:25:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSRJ-0006jB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:25:33 -0400 Received: from 000-236-040.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.161.75] helo=68.27.161.75) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSRH-0006j4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:25:32 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030704112321.00bbed20@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 6. Solutions - DNS based - DNSSEC (was Re: [Asrg] Re: DNSSEC not deployable) In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030704102924.00bbed20@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: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:25:10 -0400 For the sake of consideration of all DNS proposals, we need to know if we can rely on the DNS-SEC protocol being implemented. Otherwise, if it will never be implemented there is not point in having DNS-based anti-spam systems. That's why I suggested in a different thread that we should not have this discussion here, but rather solicit an official comment from the IESG or IAB on DNS-SEC status in relation to our group. Yakov At 05:44 AM 7/4/2003 -0700, william@elan.net wrote: >The problem is not DNSSEC itself its that some people and organisations >are actively blocking its deployment - and that includes both sides of >as far issues at dnsop and namedroppers. And the term "rough concensus" >or "most agree" does not even closely apply there, so that is why some >are unhappy that WG Chairs are making decisions which may not have >everybody's support. > >P.S. That above just my opinion as outsider not having participated and just >based on archives and other docs I've read. I'll not go into this again >and I think ASRG should avoid futher discussions about issues with >current or proposed DNS standards - these are for other WGs and we have >enough countroveries to worry about at ASRG. > > > Thank you for pointing this out. Based on this information, does that mean > > that any type of anti-spam scheme that relies on the DNS system > > (RMX/rDNS/etc.) would be inherently insecure? Also, What exactly is the > > nature of the problem with the current DNS-SEC standard? > > > > 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 Fri Jul 4 11:31:36 2003 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 LAA29715 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:31:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSWe-0004h8-CQ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:31:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64FV4LC018040 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 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 19YSWe-0004gt-95 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 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 LAA29692; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:31:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSWd-0006pw-00; Fri, 04 Jul 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 19YSWc-0006pt-00; Fri, 04 Jul 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 19YSWc-0004dG-B5; Fri, 04 Jul 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 19YSVw-0004cT-Ar for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:30:20 -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 LAA29670 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:30:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSVv-0006pN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:30:19 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSVu-0006pK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:30:18 -0400 Received: from [65.177.169.113] (account nazgul HELO [63.186.240.231]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2512127; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:30:17 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030704110751.A10667@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> <20030630022018.A2266@m433> <20030702165715.A6542@m433> <20030704110751.A10667@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: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:26:21 -0400 At 11:07 AM -0400 7/4/03, Walter Dnes wrote: >On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 06:07:20PM -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote > >> > How much do they care; 75 cents' worth ? It's their decision, just >> >like with snail-mail versus courirer. >> >> No. That's a sender decision. I'm talking about a receiver >> decision. And the problem is that if the receiver starts paying for >> receipt of messages (e.g. to their sales line) then they are open to >> a different kind of for-profit spam. > > Please re-read my original proposal. It includes the sentence... > >> The general public could join with free "read-only" accounts, with >> the option of sending one-off messages for a low fee. > > Most customers of UPS/Fedex/Purolator are businesses, and have >accounts with them. But individuals do use couriers occasionally when >the need arises, and pay a one-off fee. The "Business ISP" is to be >a "sender-pays" system. The sender *ALWAYS* pays for messages sent. >The receiver *NEVER* pays for messages recieved. One of us is misunderstanding. I'm not sure which of us. My issue as a business is how do I ensure that I reliably get email from customers who aren't paying to send. -- 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 Jul 4 11:35:35 2003 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 LAA29798 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:35:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSaZ-00051R-Jj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:35:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64FZ7db019296 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:35:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSaZ-00050x-G9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:35:07 -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 LAA29778; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:35:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSaY-0006sM-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:35:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSaX-0006sG-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:35:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSaT-0004x9-A0; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:35:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSaO-0004we-F6 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:34:56 -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 LAA29774 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:34:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSaN-0006sA-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:34:55 -0400 Received: from 000-236-040.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.161.75] helo=68.27.161.75) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSaL-0006s6-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:34:54 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030704113429.00ba7728@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Kee Hinckley , Selby Hatch , Asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 4. Survey of Solutions - Consent (was Re: [Asrg] Nothing will stop 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: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:34:30 -0400 At 11:14 AM 7/4/2003 -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote: >.... >Sleeping on this I came up with some more issues (okay, I didn't sleep >very well). > >1. Like many systems, this ties in tightly with identity. If I move to a >new ISP (or Comcast gets sold *again*) my email address changes. How do I >manage notifying all of my contacts. Some people seem to think the >address book model works, but I correspond with several orders of >magnitude more people than are in my address book, and some of them I only >send mail to every few years--I don't want to have to notify them all of a >change, nor is it clear to me *how* I would notify them of a change >without hitting the consent system again. It's probably technically >feasible, albeit difficult, to do so if I know in advance of the >change--but that doesn't always happen. Right now people struggle with >simple things like transferring their address book, never mind >transferring consent. A regular occurrence on wormalert is mail from >someone to all of their contents with a brief comment like "sorry, just >mailing myself a copy of my address book". That's how they do it--they >put everyone in the to, including their new address. So. Without a >persistent concept of identity, consent is rather transient to the >recipient, never mind the sender. A consent system will not base its decisions solely on the sender's email address although this may be a major factor. You may have a consent token that will let you in regardless of your email address. This consent token may be a digital certificate or signature, or verification by a third party. A simple password might not suffice. However, two points must be made. First if all, a consent system does not necessarily imply that all incoming email from unknown senders gets chucked. All a consent system does is provide a framework and tools for users to define policies for incoming email. A consent system that lets all ASCII email through like Gordon suggested, is still a consent system just like a consent system using C/R. Second of all, like someone else mentioned in a different thread, a consent system that automatically blacklists all incoming unknown email might not be necessarily. If enough spam is blocked even though some may get through, the spammer's profit plummets and they will lose the economic inventive (this is also in regards to the introduction issue you mentioned before). Also, just to let you know - I posted a rough draft of the consent model in this message (https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg06209.html). Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 11:53:34 2003 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 LAA00190 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:53:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSry-0006dd-6x for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:53:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64Fr6Z6025511 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:53:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSry-0006dO-0B for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:53:06 -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 LAA00172; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:53:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSrw-00071f-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:53:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSrw-00071c-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:53:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSru-0006bV-2P; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:53:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSrm-0006bG-PQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:52:54 -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 LAA00168 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:52:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSrl-00071Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:52:53 -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 19YSrk-00071V-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:52:52 -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 19YSr7-0003g9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:52:13 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 6. Solutions - DNS based - DNSSEC (was Re: [Asrg] Re: DNSSEC not deployable) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:25:10 EDT." <5.2.0.9.2.20030704112321.00bbed20@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, 04 Jul 2003 11:52:13 -0400 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > For the sake of consideration of all DNS proposals, we need to know if we > can rely on the DNS-SEC protocol being implemented. I disagree. The problem ASRG is looking at is the spam problem. DNS security issues SHOULD be referenced and described in drafts, but any proposed solution SHOULD NOT be dependent on solving security issues which are outside of the scope of ASRG. > Otherwise, if it will never be implemented there is not point in > having DNS-based anti-spam systems. I disagree. DNS based anti-spam solutions will make it more difficult for spammers to do their business, even without DNSSEC. > That's why I suggested in a different thread that we should not have > this discussion here, but rather solicit an official comment from > the IESG or IAB on DNS-SEC status in relation to our group. ASRG is not about solving the security problem for the entire network. If solutions in one area can't be implemented until all other areas have solutions implemented, then we will never get anything done. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 11:57:31 2003 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 LAA00288 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:57:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSvn-0006zy-Gp for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:57:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64Fv3wk026896 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:57:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSvn-0006zj-AE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:57:03 -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 LAA00281; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:57:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSvm-00074i-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:57:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSvl-00074f-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:57:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSvl-0006tb-0f; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:57:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSv5-0006sb-7A for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:56:19 -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 LAA00264 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:56:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSv4-00073r-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:56:18 -0400 Received: from 000-236-040.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.161.75] helo=68.27.161.75) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSv1-00073n-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:56:16 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030704115440.00bd0010@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: 6. Solutions - DNS based - DNSSEC (was Re: [Asrg] Re: DNSSEC not deployable) 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, 04 Jul 2003 11:55:54 -0400 At 11:52 AM 7/4/2003 -0400, Alan DeKok wrote: >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >.. > > Otherwise, if it will never be implemented there is not point in > > having DNS-based anti-spam systems. > > I disagree. DNS based anti-spam solutions will make it more >difficult for spammers to do their business, even without DNSSEC. Point taken - and I guess its time to drop this issue. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 12:24:34 2003 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 LAA29797 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:35:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSaZ-00051I-IL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:35:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64FZ7wu019284 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:35:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSaZ-00050w-EP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:35:07 -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 LAA29779; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:35:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSaY-0006sJ-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:35:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSaX-0006sF-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:35:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSaS-0004ww-TG; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:35:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YSZk-0004wR-Ri for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:34:16 -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 LAA29768 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:34:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSZj-0006rx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:34:15 -0400 Received: from 000-236-040.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.161.75] helo=68.27.161.75) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YSZh-0006rs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:34:14 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030704113307.00ba7728@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Kee Hinckley , Walter Dnes From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 6. Proposals - Separate ISP(s) for "guaranteed delivery" of email (was re: [Asrg] Proposal: Separate ISP(s) for "guaranteed delivery" of email) Cc: ASRG list In-Reply-To: References: <20030704110751.A10667@m433> <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> <20030630022018.A2266@m433> <20030702165715.A6542@m433> <20030704110751.A10667@m433> 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, 04 Jul 2003 11:33:47 -0400 At 11:26 AM 7/4/2003 -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote: >At 11:07 AM -0400 7/4/03, Walter Dnes wrote: >>On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 06:07:20PM -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote >> >>> > How much do they care; 75 cents' worth ? It's their decision, just >>> >like with snail-mail versus courirer. >>> >>> No. That's a sender decision. I'm talking about a receiver >>> decision. And the problem is that if the receiver starts paying for >>> receipt of messages (e.g. to their sales line) then they are open to >>> a different kind of for-profit spam. >> >> Please re-read my original proposal. It includes the sentence... >> >>> The general public could join with free "read-only" accounts, with >>> the option of sending one-off messages for a low fee. >> >> Most customers of UPS/Fedex/Purolator are businesses, and have >>accounts with them. But individuals do use couriers occasionally when >>the need arises, and pay a one-off fee. The "Business ISP" is to be >>a "sender-pays" system. The sender *ALWAYS* pays for messages sent. >>The receiver *NEVER* pays for messages recieved. > >One of us is misunderstanding. I'm not sure which of us. >My issue as a business is how do I ensure that I reliably get email from >customers who aren't paying to send. Perhaps some kind of a COD mechanism? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 12:32:36 2003 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 MAA01667 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:32:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YTTl-0002EM-4I for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:32:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64GW96L008568 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:32:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YTTl-0002E7-18 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:32:09 -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 MAA01628; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:32:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YTTj-0007h3-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:32:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YTTi-0007h0-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:32:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YTTc-0002C7-V4; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:32:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YTSj-0002Bl-FT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:31:05 -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 MAA01621 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:31:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YTSh-0007gd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:31:03 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YTSh-0007gX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:31:03 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip70-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.70]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6230036A12 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:30:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:30:56 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating Message-ID: <20030704123056.B10667@m433> References: <20030703065923.A2063@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 aland@freeradius.org on Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:44:02AM -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, 4 Jul 2003 12:30:56 -0400 On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:44:02AM -0400, Alan DeKok wrote > > My spam count on this account has gone down from multiple spams per > > day to multiple days between spams. > > Wonderful. Does this work for AOL? Nortel? Hotmail? Striker? > > Not really. (Or, not without substantial cost.) And what do you do > when the spam load goes up by a factor of 10, as it will? There is no one magic bullet. A comprehensive solution involves attacking the problem on many fronts. I've mentioned a solution that works for a single user. Corporations would, I believe, benefit greatly from my "Business ISP" proposal. In future, we may have to go to a "pre-paid messages" system even for individuals. You won't be able to send more than 100 messages/month without paying a per-message fee. > If such a solution could get rid of the vast majority of spam, then > we wouldn't need ASRG. But it can't, and it won't scale to the > future. As previous discussions on ASRG have shown, the amount of > spam can increase by a factor of 10 to 100, before it starts to > dominate the network. > > > As far as I'm concerned, my problem has been almost 100% cured. > > Then why are you not asking for ASRG to be disbanded? > > > That cure is available to others. > > If it's a general solution, then ASRG is not needed, and you should > ask the IRTF to disband it. If you're not going to do that, then I'm > confused as to why you're here. One mindset I see too much of here is the search for *THE* solution to spam. I don't think it exists. As I mentioned above, a comprehensive solution will involve attacking spam from many different angles. My experience is with one such system. I'm stating that it greatly reduces spam, for me. I think that end-user configurable blocking is one weapon that should be included in the anti-spam arsenal. > > If you've got minor cuts, bandaids *ARE* the appropriate solution. > > Did you read *any* of my messages about the spam problem at my > striker.ottawa.on.ca domain? > > I heard opinions like yours over 3 years ago. "Striker is unusual, > my spam load is managable, the spam problem of Striker will never > happen to me." Now, 3 years later, the *same* people are on record as > complaining about their spam load, and that something needs to be > done. They're getting the spam traffic today that I was getting THREE > YEARS ago. > > And their attitude is still "Striker is unusual, it won't happen to > me." > > Do these people have any intention of learning from history? If > ASRG had started up 3 years ago, we might have had a workable solution > by now. Striker, for whatever reason, is receiving more unwanted email than most other similar-sized domains. What was sufficient for my personal domain is not sufficient for Striker. Solving Striker's problem will require more weapons from the combined anti-spam arsenal. By the way, I am aware that Striker is *NOT* unique. Back in January, the Canadian government released a discussion paper on email marketing. See... http://e-com.ic.gc.ca/english/strat/email_marketing.html Comments were invited, and I made a submission. Here's an extract from it... ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Email Marketing; It Does Not Scale ================================== Widespread email marketing is a "tragedy-of-the-commons" situation. If one company does it, they call it "innovative". If many companies do it, it becomes the equivalent to a DDOS attack. One company sending UBE might not fill your inbox or crash your ISP's mail server. However, millions of advertisers spewing advertising can accomplish it. A few examples follow... ====================================================================== 1) http://news.com.com/2100-1033-206651.html?legacy=cnet By Janet Kornblum Staff Writer December 26, 1997, 1:05 PM PT Small and medium-sized businesses that use GTE for Internet services have been experiencing problems with email since Monday night, when spam took down the system for a day, according to GTE. The email server responsible for the 600 small and medium-sized business "internetworking" customers crashed Monday afternoon after "customers sustained some severe spamming attacks," said GTE spokesman Bill Kula. GTE was not the only service to experience email difficulties over the holidays. Members of the online community GeoCities also complained about problems with its free email service. A GeoCities spokesperson could not be reached for comment. 2) http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,41239,00.html 11:10 AM Jan. 17, 2001 PT In a statement released on Tuesday, UUNET said, "The Unsolicited Commercial E-mail (UCE) wrecked havoc upon Pipex mail queuing systems and is only allowing small amounts to reach customers' mailboxes. 3) http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,50455,00.html Blocking the spam-sending ISPs hasn't alleviated all of the problems. Refusing massive amounts of attempted connections also puts a strain on servers, in some cases bogging the system down in much the same way as a sustained denial-of-service attack. "British ISP UXN found that simply blocking China Telecom wasn't enough because UXN's mail servers still had to deal with hundreds of connection requests per minute from Chinese mail servers," Linford said. "UXN had to actually firewall China Telecom's IP range from connecting to UXN's mail servers to stop the mass of connections from clogging UXN's mail service." \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ I was aware of this type of problem when I made my submission back in February. > And you're telling me that filtering after RCTP TO's is a solution? > By all means... wait 3 years, and it won't be. It is *PART OF* the solution. It is sufficient for me today, it may not be sufficient, by itself in future. That's why we need multiple strategies, working simultaneously, to reduce unwanted email. In the case of Striker, it might involve null-routing or firewalling the worst offenders, as in UXN's case. > That's why we needed ASRG 3 years ago, and that's why we need > it today. My main beef is with people who believe that any solution that doesn't *ENTIRELY* solve the problem *ALL BY ITSELF* should be rejected out of hand. Even with DNSbls, it is acknowledged that one list is insuffient. That is why effective blocking, as in my case, involves using several lists, plus manually adding ranges on my own, plus whitelisting, plus other rules. Similary, an overall solution to spam involves many simultaneous attacks on the problem. Striker's problem is one of quantity, not quality. There is no one solution to Striker's problem. Several strategies in combination are the way to go. ASRG can best serve legitimate email users by coming up with several solutions that work towards the common goal. Because even pondscum evolves, spammers will attempt to exploit new loopholes all the time. We need anti-spam forums on an ongoing basis to develope new defenses against new attacks. -- 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 Jul 4 12:54:37 2003 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 MAA01933 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:54:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YTp4-0003pv-Gh for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:54:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64GsAGg014745 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:54:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YTp4-0003pk-DA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:54:10 -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 MAA01920; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:54:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YTp2-00001T-00; Fri, 04 Jul 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 19YTp2-00001Q-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:54:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YTov-0003ns-5q; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:54:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YToE-0003nL-Bu for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 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 MAA01891 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:53:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YToC-00000j-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:53:16 -0400 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YToB-00000g-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:53:15 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h64GrF2Q015494; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 09:53:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 09:53:15 -0700 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D22C2@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , Steven F Siirila Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: DNSSEC not deployable 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: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 09:53:15 -0700 > Thank you for pointing this out. Based on this information, > does that mean > that any type of anti-spam scheme that relies on the DNS system > (RMX/rDNS/etc.) would be inherently insecure? Also, What > exactly is the > nature of the problem with the current DNS-SEC standard? I don't believe that the lack of a deployable DNSSEC spec prevents the deployment of RMX type solutions for the following reasons: 1) DNS Clients can detect spoofing attempts and use them as spamdication. 2) Requests may be made using TCP/IP to achieve additional spoofing protection. 3) There is no value in securing the DNS system against IP address spoofing attacks unless the resulting system protects against the same spoofing attacks in SMTP. 4) If robust cryptographic means are used for authentication these may employ existing mechanisms for trust path advertisement and discovery (XKMS, LDAP, HTTP) to advertise security policy. The problem with the DNSSEC specs as they stand is that deployment has an immediate effect on the size of a signed zone even if none of the zones delegated from that zone are actually secured. This means that deployment of DNSSEC would immediately cause the size of the dotcom zone file to grow from about 4 Gb to about 24 Gb. This has a major impact on cost of deployment since the number of daily transactions in the dotCOM zone is approaching 10 billion and so the zone file has to be maintained in RAM at each node in the ATLAS constellation. Deploying the current DNSSEC spec without modification would involve a very significant unnecessary cost. It would also significantly limit the ability of the registrar to introduce other enhancements that might be required. A proposal was made to correct the specification that was by all accounts supported by a clear majority of the group. However this was opposed by one of the chairs. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 13:01:29 2003 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 NAA02065 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:01:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YTvj-0004Tg-54 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:01:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64H13mD017206 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:01:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YTvj-0004TI-21 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:01:03 -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 NAA02048; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:00:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YTvh-00004J-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:01:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YTvg-00004G-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:01:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YTvg-0004QT-BO; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:01:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YTvY-0004Q2-VZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:00:52 -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 NAA02045 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:00:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YTvX-000045-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:00:51 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YTvW-000042-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:00:50 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h64H0lch025716; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:00:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:00:48 -0700 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D22C3@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Alan DeKok'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: 6. Solutions - DNS based - DNSSEC (was Re: [Asrg] Re: DNSSEC not deployable) 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: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:00:47 -0700 > Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > For the sake of consideration of all DNS proposals, we need > to know if we > > can rely on the DNS-SEC protocol being implemented. > > I disagree. The problem ASRG is looking at is the spam problem. > DNS security issues SHOULD be referenced and described in drafts, but > any proposed solution SHOULD NOT be dependent on solving security > issues which are outside of the scope of ASRG. I think it is relevant to consider the deployability of DNSSEC when we are considering the deployability of an anti-spam solution that has a critical dependency on it. Whether this is IETF rules or not is irrelevant to me, far too much of the IETF spends its time developing a protocol that depends upon another group inventing sky hooks or anti-gravity devices. I also think that we should take care to consider the effect that our proposals might have on other parts of the internet infrastructure. It is not our problem to fix the security holes in BGP, but if we develop a protocol that creates incentives for spammers to attack BGP we should probably bring this to people's attention so it can get fixed. In this case I don't think that there is a strong dependence and in any case it is possible that the DNS security problems that concern us can be solved by other protocol mechanisms besides DNSSEC. Avoiding a strong dependency is good. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 13:11:35 2003 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 NAA02264 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:11:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YU5U-0005ZE-L9 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:11:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64HB8cJ021394 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:11:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YU5U-0005Yz-Ho for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:11:08 -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 NAA02241; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:11:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YU5S-0000AK-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:11:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YU5R-0000AH-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:11:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YU5N-0005X7-62; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:11:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YU4V-0005Wf-Oj for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:10:07 -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 NAA02214 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:10:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YU4T-00009L-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:10:05 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr9.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YU4O-00009D-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:10:00 -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 PHL08825; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:09:52 -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 AKB60836; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:09:51 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Kee Hinckley'" Cc: "'Selby Hatch'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Nothing will stop spam??? Message-ID: <002401c3424f$1882a2d0$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: 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, 4 Jul 2003 13:09:57 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Kee Hinckley wrote: > it negates a lot of the current benefits of email. =20 > (Immediacy. The lack of a need for an introduction...) I agree that the current lack of a need for introductions has distinct benefits and it will be a nuisance to lose it, however, I think we need to recognize that the world is not what it once was. In the "old days" you could assume that anyone who was able to send email was probably someone worth corresponding with and you could assume that they probably held respect for the network and valued the rules and customs for its use. We can no longer make these assumptions. The world has changed. Today, it is precisely this "benefit" of easy access that provides the opening for spammers.=20 There should be no question that moving to the kinds of systems that are required to reduce spam will result in some loss of opportunities for serendipity etc. However, this is a cost that we have little choice but to accept. We should be thankful, I think, that we were able to use the Internet in a "collegial" and "trusting" fashion for as long as we did. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 13:16:31 2003 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 NAA02362 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:16:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUAF-0005qT-6N for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:16:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64HG3s7022463 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:16:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUAF-0005qE-1z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:16:03 -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 NAA02358; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:16:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUAD-0000Cf-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:16:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUAC-0000Cc-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:16:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUAD-0005oM-8a; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:16:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YU9Z-0005o7-T7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:15:21 -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 NAA02355 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:15:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YU9X-0000CW-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:15:20 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YU9X-0000CT-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:15:19 -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 <20030704171710.EGUD28645.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com> for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:17:10 -0400 Message-ID: <3F05B632.1010907@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 CC: Asrg@ietf.org References: <002401c3424f$1882a2d0$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> In-Reply-To: <002401c3424f$1882a2d0$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Summary to date? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 04 Jul 2003 13:15:30 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've noticed recently that we have 3 or 4 separate conversations going on in parallel. I am finding it very difficult to keep things straight. I was wondering if it would be possible to get a summary of exactly where we are in ASRG. Regards, Chuck Wegrzyn _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 13:18:32 2003 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 NAA02422 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:18:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUCC-0006Cx-03 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:18:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64HI3YB023860 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:18:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUCB-0006Cl-TU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:18:03 -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 NAA02411; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:18:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUC9-0000Df-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:18:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUC9-0000Dc-00; Fri, 04 Jul 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 19YUC9-00069m-02; Fri, 04 Jul 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 19YUBg-00069L-Pn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:17:32 -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 NAA02392 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:17:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUBe-0000DP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:17:30 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUBe-0000DM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:17:30 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip70-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.70]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9CD55369F9 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:17:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:17:23 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating Message-ID: <20030704131723.C10667@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 aland@freeradius.org on Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:53:36PM -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, 4 Jul 2003 13:17:23 -0400 On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:53:36PM -0400, Alan DeKok wrote > Paul Judge wrote: > > I did not see his message suggesting that this was a solution to > > the 'global problem' of spam. > > I agree. > > My point was more that local band-aids help, but only for short > periods of time. Everyone on ASRG should already know this. If the > band-aids were *permanently* effective, then ASRG would be unnecessary. A permanently effective solution simply doesn't exist. It implies a static problem. Spammers adapt their tactics to whatever defenses we evolve. The best defense is a multi-faceted one. Anybody who reads comp.risks should be familiar with the concept of multiple redundancy for systems, so that the failure of one portion doesn't shut down everything. Adopting "the one true global spam solution" risks everybody being mailbombed with ads when a hole is found in that one solution. A lot of different "local band-aids" are less likely to fail simultaneously. And if we use what the military refers to as "defense in depth", the failure of one component will merely cause other components to trap more spam. The mission of ASRG should be to keep coming up with new anti-spam strategies as the old ones are circumvented. -- 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 Jul 4 13:30:42 2003 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 NAA02576 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:30:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUNx-00077P-Ix for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:30:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64HUDf9027358 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:30:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUNx-00077B-G8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:30:13 -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 NAA02560; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:30:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUNv-0000JS-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:30:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUNu-0000JP-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:30:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUNm-000748-0g; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:30:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUNV-00073k-0B for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:29:45 -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 NAA02556 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:29:42 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUNS-0000JH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:29:42 -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 19YUNR-0000JE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:29:41 -0400 Received: (cpmta 3700 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2003 10:29:39 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.65) with SMTP; 4 Jul 2003 10:29:39 -0700 X-Sent: 4 Jul 2003 17:29:39 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:28:11 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:57:07 -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 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: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:57:07 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> In the case of a person that I don't know, that means that they will > have to provide a summary of *why* they want to talk to me. (E.g. > reporting a bug in your software, your system sent me a virus, our > company changed its name, this is your grandmother sending mail from a > cruise ship....). >> I see absolutely no way to provide that information without providing a > big enough window for spammers to send ads. >> What am I missing? Nothing, really. You're right. BUT: You can require that messages from unknown/untrusted people: 1) do not contain HTML or other risky/cloaking-friendly techniques; 2) do not contain attachments or encoding; 3) are able to pass through content filters (SpamAssasin-like) that recognize familiar spam and t-can it. Now, it's TRUE that IF you are able to get messages from previously unknown people, then SOME of those messages COULD be ads or spam. OTOH, nothing says that you necessarily have to READ the message itself to find out. I've already proposed in conjunction with my Permissions List that you could have (as a second-level implementation) that "held" messages (those which failed your permissions test) be summarized periodically to permit a quick triage by the recipient. You could alternatively treat ALL untrusted mail that way, perhaps. That way, to get an unexpected message through, someone would need to make their case to read it in the subject... and something more specific and personal than typical spammer lures like "You were right" or "Is this your E-mail?" or "I love you!" or whatever. > I have proposed a message type that is limited to text only. (see https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05814.html) I think that recipients should ABSOLUTELY be able to bounce or T-can unexpected mail from untrusted senders if it contains HTML. HTML is generally used to obscure or cloak the content of spam messages. > It is limited to a fixed number of characters, enough for a name/identification and reason for correspondence. That's fine, although up to this point I'll mention that a lot of spam (once you get rid of the HTML) is pretty small as individual e-mails. > No URLs are permitted. That's certainly reasonable enough. What about Hotmail/Yahoo/etc that tend to append banner ads incorporating URLs? > The only way to respond and give consent is by return email to the from email address provided. No one can ask for permission without a valid email address to provide a way for consent to be returned. In my Permissions List concept, you don't have to send a specific "notice of permission" back to the unknown person. They just have to send you plain ASCII text, no HTML, no attachments. You can adjust their permissions at any time, as you the recipient feel is necessary and appropriate. 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 Jul 4 13:47:36 2003 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 NAA02881 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:47:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUeK-0008R6-1B for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:47:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64Hl8dR032429 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:47:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUeJ-0008Qy-T8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:47:07 -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 NAA02870; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:47:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUeH-0000Q8-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:47:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUeH-0000Q5-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:47:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUeD-0008Nz-4N; Fri, 04 Jul 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 19YUdV-0008Nf-Os for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:46:17 -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 NAA02862 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:46:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUdT-0000Pm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:46:15 -0400 Received: from smtp.dslextreme.com ([66.51.205.17] helo=co1.dslextreme.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUdS-0000Ph-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:46:15 -0400 Received: from epia (eli-208.187.128.92.dslextreme.com [208.187.128.92]) by co1.dslextreme.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h64HeUUE014301 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:40:31 -0700 Message-ID: <002901c34254$11492c00$5c80bbd0@epia> From: "Jed Margolin" To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] Forbes: Pay up MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" 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 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 4 Jul 2003 10:45:31 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Schear" To: "ASRG" ; Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 4:16 PM Subject: [Asrg] Forbes: Pay up > A promising way to curb spam: Charge the sender. > > Hoping to stop the evil epidemic of spam, Philip Raymond is putting a > price on it. The 46-year-old software executive has a provisional patent > on a service called Vanquish, which requires e-mail senders to post a > cash bond of 5 cents into a bank account for every piece of e-mail they send. - snip - Stop right there. There is no such thing as a provisional patent. There is a "provisional patent application" which is a provisional application for a patent which simply serves as a good way to establish priority later on. (It also lets you tell people you have a "patent pending" on something.) It's not even a real patent application except for the purpose of filing a patent application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. You have one year to file a real patent application to claim the benefits of the provisional application. However, a provisonal application for a patent is not examined on its merits by the Patent Office and it gives the Applicant none of the rights that accrue from having an issued patent. See http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/provapp.htm for more information. Jed Margolin (Not a Patent Attorney, but then, I'm not charging you $300 an hour, either.) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 13:51:33 2003 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 NAA02986 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:51:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUi7-0000PM-Oe for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:51:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64Hp3mo001564 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:51:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUi7-0000P9-KU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:51:03 -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 NAA02981; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:51:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUi5-0000S5-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:51:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUi4-0000S2-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:51:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUi5-0000J3-RO; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:51:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUht-0000Ir-VT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:50:50 -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 NAA02978 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:50:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUhr-0000Rw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:50:47 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=mr10.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUhr-0000Rt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:50:47 -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 ACI08564; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:50:43 -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 AKB64162; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:50:41 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'Paul Judge'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] 4. Survey of Solutions - Consent Model Message-ID: <002901c34254$cd23fe00$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: <5.2.0.9.2.20030703153840.00b6cc50@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: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:50:47 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >I wrote up an document on the consent model=20 I think it would be good to strip from the document the general discussion of the spam problem and focus on the technical framework. One can assume that the nature of the problem is well understood -- the "evils" of spam are well-known problems. As it stands now, the discussion of motivation for the proposal simply makes the document much larger without really adding much. Also, while I would certainly include a short (one-paragraph?) section on motivation and ensure that the paragraph mentions spam, I think the document should focus on "consent" not "spam." Ideally, spam would only be explicitly mentioned in a short description of motivation. The rest of the document should only talk about consent. The challenge of the document is to define how consent is expressed and managed. Such a framework can have value dealing with more problems than simply providing part of a solution to the spam problem. In general, I think it is not useful to quote other documents at length. Given hypertext, we're able to easily and effectively reference other documents without burdening every document with large extracts of others. Ideally, the consent framework would be a concise description where every line had value on its own and wasn't simply a repetition of data found elsewhere. The simpler the document is, the easier it will be for people to understand it and evaluate it. I think there are some labeling problems in the current document. For instance, a "lookup in a realtime black list" is not a "policy enforcement mechanism." Rather it is a means for determining some attribute of a message which can then be fed into the policy enforcement mechanism. (i.e. Message has the "sent from blacklisted node" attribute. Thus, the enforcement mechanism -- which is distinct from the mechanism that did the blacklist lookup -- decides to reject the message or put it in a graybox.) The same comment applies to most of the other things mentioned in this section. They are all means to discover attributes of a message -- it is only anecdotal that most implementations of these methods are bound to specific enforcement policies. The framework should clearly identify the distinctions between components of a system. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 13:54:31 2003 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 NAA03031 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:54:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUl1-0000Zu-B5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:54:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64Hs3ou002216 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:54:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUl1-0000Zf-6m for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:54:03 -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 NAA03027; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:54:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUky-0000TM-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:54:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUky-0000TJ-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:54:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUky-0000Xl-MN; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:54:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUk6-0000QB-NN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:53:06 -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 NAA03016 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:53:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUk4-0000Sp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:53:04 -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 19YUk3-0000Sl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:53:03 -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 19YUjQ-0003io-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:52:24 -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, 04 Jul 2003 12:30:56 EDT." <20030704123056.B10667@m433> 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, 04 Jul 2003 13:52:24 -0400 Walter Dnes wrote: > One mindset I see too much of here is the search for *THE* solution to > spam. I don't think it exists. I have supported this view in previous messages to the list. > My experience is with one such system. I'm stating that it greatly > reduces spam, for me. I think that end-user configurable blocking > is one weapon that should be included in the anti-spam arsenal. I understand, but it doesn't scale. Or, it works well once *other* methods have been used to reduce the spam flood to an annoying trickle. > By the way, I am aware that Striker is *NOT* unique. I never claimed it was unique, just unusual, and a sign of the future for most domains. My frustration with people saying it was "unusual" was the blind denial that what is unusual for someone else today, will be the usual case for them tomorrow. > Back in January, the Canadian > government released a discussion paper on email marketing. See... > http://e-com.ic.gc.ca/english/strat/email_marketing.html > > Comments were invited, and I made a submission. Here's an extract > from it... I was interviewed by people inside the government for the history of Striker's problems, and that information was used as background for further reports. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 13:55:34 2003 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 NAA03069 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:55:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUm2-0000hG-AL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:55:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64Ht63d002672 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:55:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUm2-0000h1-6O for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:55:06 -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 NAA03062; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:55:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUlz-0000Ts-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:55:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUlz-0000Tp-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:55:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUlx-0000f0-JO; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:55:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUlh-0000eb-U3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:54:45 -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 NAA03056 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:54:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUlf-0000Tk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:54:43 -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 19YUlf-0000Th-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:54:43 -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 19YUl2-0003iz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:54:04 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 6. Solutions - DNS based - DNSSEC (was Re: [Asrg] Re: DNSSEC not deployable) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:00:47 PDT." <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D22C3@mou1wnexm02.verisign.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, 04 Jul 2003 13:54:04 -0400 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" wrote: > I think it is relevant to consider the deployability of DNSSEC when > we are considering the deployability of an anti-spam solution that > has a critical dependency on it. That's a better phrasing of what I intended than I was able to come up with. > I also think that we should take care to consider the effect that > our proposals might have on other parts of the internet infrastructure. > It is not our problem to fix the security holes in BGP, but if we > develop a protocol that creates incentives for spammers to attack BGP > we should probably bring this to people's attention so it can get fixed. And anti-spam proposals which simply move the problem elsewhere, without decreasing it's effects, are probably not worth the effort. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 13:59:33 2003 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 NAA03256 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:59:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUpt-0001Sr-Gg for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:59:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64Hx5PU005623 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:59:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUpt-0001Sc-Cd for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:59:05 -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 NAA03241; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:59:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUpq-0000ZB-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:59:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUpq-0000Z8-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:59:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUpo-0001Pe-Ny; Fri, 04 Jul 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 19YUpK-0001PF-IK for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:58:30 -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 NAA03229 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:58:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUpI-0000Ys-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:58:28 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr9.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUpH-0000Yo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:58:27 -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 PHL10971; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:58:26 -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 AKB64780; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:58:25 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Consent systems Message-ID: <002a01c34255$e0fac4d0$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: 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, 4 Jul 2003 13:58:30 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Gordon Peterson wrote: > In my Permissions List concept, you don't have to send a=20 > specific "notice of permission" back to the unknown person.=20 In the framework for "consent based systems" it should be noted that consent need not be communicated to senders. i.e. you should be able to express consent to your ISP or your mail software without having to tell anyone else. The communication of consent and the scope of any communication would be personal choices made by specific users. The mere fact that a consent based system may permit communication of consent should not be taken to be a requirement that such communication occur. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 14:09:35 2003 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 OAA03602 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:09:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUzb-0002bi-Kt for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:09:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64I97xo010018 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:09:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUzb-0002bV-Hr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:09:07 -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 OAA03592; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:09:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUzZ-0000fH-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:09:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUzY-0000fE-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:09:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUzV-0002YN-D2; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:09:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YUye-0002ON-Ps for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:08:08 -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 OAA03524 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:08:06 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YUyc-0000dx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:08:06 -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 19YUyb-0000dp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:08:05 -0400 Received: (cpmta 9178 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2003 11:08:04 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.66) with SMTP; 4 Jul 2003 11:08:04 -0700 X-Sent: 4 Jul 2003 18:08:04 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:07:36 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:36:32 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE: [Asrg] Consent systems To: , , In-Reply-To: <002a01c34255$e0fac4d0$640aa8c0@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, 04 Jul 2003 13:36:32 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> In my Permissions List concept, you don't have to send a >> specific "notice of permission" back to the unknown person. > In the framework for "consent based systems" it should be noted >that consent need not be communicated to senders. i.e. you should be >able to express consent to your ISP or your mail software without having >to tell anyone else. The communication of consent and the scope of any >communication would be personal choices made by specific users. The mere >fact that a consent based system may permit communication of consent >should not be taken to be a requirement that such communication occur. Absolutely. And more specifically, the recipient ought to be able to change that permission at any time... making it either more restrictive, or less, as they think appropriate. This actually suggests against a token-based system, since once you've given a token to a particular sender you might need to be able to revoke it or modify the permissions associated with it. At that point, their own E-mail address (along with the recipient address) is plenty enough "token", I think, in order for the associated current permissions to be looked up. :-) 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 Jul 4 14:11:32 2003 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 OAA03664 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:11:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YV1U-0002xm-M3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:11:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64IB4oq011383 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:11:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YV1U-0002xW-Iv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:11:04 -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 OAA03652; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:11:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YV1R-0000ge-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:11:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YV1R-0000ga-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:11:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YV1S-0002tj-7P; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:11:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YV0X-0002su-Aj for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:10:05 -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 OAA03619 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:10:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YV0U-0000fm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:10:02 -0400 Received: from 000-228-558.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.131.213] helo=68.27.131.213) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YV0T-0000fi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:10:02 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030704122938.00ba7538@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] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 04 Jul 2003 14:08:57 -0400 As many group members have noticed in the last few days, Mr. McCarron has been posting a large volume of messages to the list regarding the GIEIS system that he is developing. The following is my analysis of his proposed system and how it falls within the consent framework (current draft at http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-consent-framework.html). All quotes are from (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis/). --------- ANALYSIS The GIEIS system seems to be a convergence of two proposals: message tracking and centralization. Message tracking has been proposed by John Fenley as part of the C/R protocol and other proposals (callback, etc.). Centralization is not new but is similar to the other proposals on the list especially Walter Dnes's "Business Email" proposal. This is also similar to the proposal by someone else who suggested registration of all SMTP servers and perhaps issuing digital certificates to them. Every message in the GIEIS system is stamped with a tracking number issued by the ISP's server (EAS). These servers are in turn authorized or controlled by central entity. Thus two goals are accomplished: spam is traceable and action can be easily taken against spammers by kicking them off the GIEIS network. Within the consent framework this would correspond to the SOURCE TRACKING COMPONENT. The RECEIVER is assumed to have his CONSENT POLICY set to accept GIEIS messages, will check the tracking code against the central database and grant consent if the code if valid. The centralization aspect of the proposal is what actually prevents spam - action can be easily taken against the SENDERs by fining them or kicking them off the system. There are numerous other things mentioned in the GIEIS proposal, all of which are either irrelevant to fighting spam such as viruses, or are implementation details. Many other spam-related approaches are lumped together as well, many of which are irrelevant and have been taken from the group discussions without granting credit to their authors. An example of that is Gordon's proposal on requiring ASCII only email. SUGGESTIONS TO MR. MCCARON 1. Take all the BS out of your proposal and separate the main idea from the implementation details. 2. Stop thinking that your system will take over the Net - any system implemented will need to accommodate multiple implementation details. You will be better off on proposing a system like Truste. 3. CREATE A SEPARATE mailing list or discussion area for your proposal where you can work out the kinks like the SPF proposal's author did. Then present us with a draft. 4. Participate in defining the consent framework. 5. Give credit where its due, when you use someone's idea - give credit. -------------------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 14:11:32 2003 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 OAA03665 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:11:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YV1U-0002y3-PJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:11:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64IB4BO011399 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:11:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YV1U-0002xi-M0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:11:04 -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 OAA03653; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:11:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YV1R-0000gi-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:11:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YV1R-0000gb-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:11:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YV1S-0002uD-JI; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:11:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YV0Y-0002t1-3S for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:10:06 -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 OAA03622 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:10:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YV0V-0000fr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:10:03 -0400 Received: from 000-228-558.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.131.213] helo=68.27.131.213) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YV0T-0000fj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:10:02 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030704140916.00ba7538@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] 4. Survey of Solutions - Consent Model 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, 04 Jul 2003 14:09:17 -0400 I will be rewriting the document to in line with these suggestions. At 01:50 PM 7/4/2003 -0400, Bob Wyman wrote: >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >I wrote up an document on the consent model > I think it would be good to strip from the document the general >discussion of the spam problem and focus on the technical framework. One >can assume that the nature of the problem is well understood -- the >"evils" of spam are well-known problems. As it stands now, the >discussion of motivation for the proposal simply makes the document much >larger without really adding much. > Also, while I would certainly include a short (one-paragraph?) >section on motivation and ensure that the paragraph mentions spam, I >think the document should focus on "consent" not "spam." Ideally, spam >would only be explicitly mentioned in a short description of motivation. >The rest of the document should only talk about consent. The challenge >of the document is to define how consent is expressed and managed. Such >a framework can have value dealing with more problems than simply >providing part of a solution to the spam problem. > In general, I think it is not useful to quote other documents at >length. Given hypertext, we're able to easily and effectively reference >other documents without burdening every document with large extracts of >others. Ideally, the consent framework would be a concise description >where every line had value on its own and wasn't simply a repetition of >data found elsewhere. The simpler the document is, the easier it will be >for people to understand it and evaluate it. > I think there are some labeling problems in the current >document. For instance, a "lookup in a realtime black list" is not a >"policy enforcement mechanism." Rather it is a means for determining >some attribute of a message which can then be fed into the policy >enforcement mechanism. (i.e. Message has the "sent from blacklisted >node" attribute. Thus, the enforcement mechanism -- which is distinct >from the mechanism that did the blacklist lookup -- decides to reject >the message or put it in a graybox.) The same comment applies to most of >the other things mentioned in this section. They are all means to >discover attributes of a message -- it is only anecdotal that most >implementations of these methods are bound to specific enforcement >policies. The framework should clearly identify the distinctions between >components of a system. > > bob wyman > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jul 4 14:13:33 2003 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 OAA03755 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:13:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YV3Q-0003Hs-7E for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:13:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64ID4vV012630 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:13:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YV3Q-0003Hd-2U for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:13:04 -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 OAA03743; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:13:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YV3N-0000iL-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:13:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YV3M-0000iE-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:13:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YV3N-0003EF-PG; Fri, 04 Jul 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 19YV2r-0003Dh-Py for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:12:29 -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 OAA03720 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:12:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YV2p-0000hu-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:12:27 -0400 Received: from 000-228-558.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.131.213] helo=68.27.131.213) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YV2m-0000hr-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:12:25 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030704141115.00ba1050@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "C. Wegrzyn" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Summary to date? Cc: Asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <3F05B632.1010907@garbagedump.com> References: <002401c3424f$1882a2d0$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> <002401c3424f$1882a2d0$640aa8c0@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: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:12:02 -0400 At 01:15 PM 7/4/2003 -0400, C. Wegrzyn wrote: >I've noticed recently that we have 3 or 4 separate conversations going on >in parallel. I am finding it very difficult to keep things straight. I was >wondering if it would be possible to get a summary of exactly where we are >in ASRG. > >Regards, >Chuck Wegrzyn We are trying to steer towards defining a consent framework but since the ASRG is seen sometimes as the authority on spam issues, every proposal under the sun makes its way here. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 14:49:38 2003 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 OAA04431 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:49:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YVcN-0005xS-Ev for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:49:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64InBTd022898 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:49:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YVcN-0005xF-C4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:49:11 -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 OAA04419; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:49:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YVcK-00017n-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:49:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YVcK-00017k-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:49:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YVcC-0005uG-LT; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:49:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YVbI-0005rB-T0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:48:04 -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 OAA04366 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:48:01 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YVbF-00015s-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:48:01 -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 19YVbF-00015d-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:48:01 -0400 Received: (cpmta 3073 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2003 11:47:59 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.66) with SMTP; 4 Jul 2003 11:47:59 -0700 X-Sent: 4 Jul 2003 18:47:59 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:47:42 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:16:38 -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 Systems and permission 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, 04 Jul 2003 14:16:38 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Sleeping on this I came up with some more issues (okay, I didn't sleep very well). > 1. Like many systems, this ties in tightly with identity. If I move to a new ISP (or Comcast gets sold *again*) my email address changes. How do I manage notifying all of my contacts. This is a familiar problem but completely only peripherally related to the issue of spam and permissions lists. What *most* of us do (sooner or later) is to simply buy a domain name which is PERMANENTLY yours (well, as long as you pay the renewal fees...) and eliminates your need 'forever' to send out change-of-address notices. I've changed my ISP (actually, *they* have generally been the one who sold out and sold their customer base to the new buyer ISP) at least five times since moving back to the United States almost ten years ago. Having my own domain name has insulated totally my correspondents (including mailing list subscriptions, etc) from four of those five changes. CLEARLY one doesn't want to use your employer's domain, and I think it's just about as clear that you don't really want to commit to maintaining forever the same ISP either. For those people who aren't clever enough to have their own permanent domain name, then they have to notify their correspondents. But that's no different for the sender than if they DIDN'T have a permissions list or other anti-spam technology in place. The only difference is that that the recipient needs to have some reasonably efficient way to update the sender's address in the permission list.... but that's a fairly straightforward thing to do, regardless. > Some people seem to think the address book model works, but I correspond with several orders of magnitude more people than are in my address book, and some of them I only send mail to every few years-- Sure... and how about that acquaintence you gave a business card to on that cruise ship or European holiday several years ago, urging them to get in touch if they ever made it to Dallas (or whatever)? Obviously it's not only impractical, it's basically IMPOSSIBLE to update everyone on the E-mail address change. But hey, if you got caught up in the attbi.com to comcast.net change, you probably also had been hit when it changed from home.com to attbi.com too, so you ought to know ther routine by now. > I don't want to have to notify them all of a change, nor is it clear to me *how* I would notify them of a change without hitting the consent system again. Clearly you need your own domain name. Just as I own terabites.com, gep2.com, and defend-democracy.org (in addition to several other domains which I own on behalf of various of my consulting clients). > It's probably technically feasible, albeit difficult, to do so if I know in advance of the change--but that doesn't always happen. Right now people struggle with simple things like transferring their address book, never mind transferring consent. Obviously the SENDER cannot transfer consent. That can ONLY (meaningfully!) be done by the RECIPIENT, who controls absolutely who they do and do not approve. > A regular occurrence on wormalert is mail from someone to all of their contents with a brief comment like "sorry, just mailing myself a copy of my address book". That's how they do it--they put everyone in the to, including their new address. Yeah, I just got an E-mail earlier today from one of my neighbors with his E-mail address change (also from attbi.com to comcast.net) with no less than almost 17k of To: addresses...! (Nothing too embarassing to him though, I looked...! ;-) ) Some people really are clueless. > So. Without a persistent concept of identity, consent is rather transient to the recipient, never mind the sender. > 2. If a consent token does degenerate to a password, then two problems occur. One, it can be sold along with your email address, just as email addresses are sold now. That would only be true if the token were not specific to a given sender. > You've basically made it simple for someone to transfer your consent. the only way around that is to tie a consent token to the sender, which means complicated software, Oh, give me a break... it could be as simple as some kind of a hash function or checksum or something. Compared to many of the other things we discuss here routinely, that's child's play. But I still think that the sender's E-mail address is just fine as a token all by itself. > ....and a knowledge of what addresses will be used to contact you. (Again, I think people working on this should focus first on a URL scheme for whitelisting. E.g. whitelist:some-piece-of-information-identifying-senders.) Why are some people SO determined to make this Web-based? While that is a fine *option*, things related to E-mail (IMHO) ought to be manageable with something no more complicated than an E-mail client. I don't want to be FORCED to use HTML to manage ANYTHING related to E-mail. > Secondly, a single password doesn't contain information about what you've consented to. Did I tell them I want a receipt for my order, or that I want a daily advertisement? And you need to be able to change that permission set, for ANY specific sender, at ANY time. To me, that sounds like their E-mail address IS their token, and the MUA/MTA at your client end/ISP/destination domain simply looks up the current permissions associated with THAT sender. Simple, direct, efficient. > Note that the latter problem is what I see as a major failing of do-not-spam-me lists. How does a vendor know whether the presence of an address on that list applies to what aspect of an existing business relationship? Clearly that's up for negotiation between them and their customer. But just because I've allowed Sears to send me my Sears credit card statements online does NOT automatically give them permission to spam me unceasingly about Allstate insurance, or a daily "on sale" flyer, or other financial services spam or whatever. And if they abuse that permission, then I clearly need to be able to T-can *everything* they send me in the future (as I already do for several companies I once gave permission to mail me, and then they made nuisances of themselves. One of them puts header garbage in insisting about how they have an absolute right to E-mail me, and that it's not spam. But it just sits and spins on one of my hard drives in the "spam" folder, which basically is a dead-letter-box. Yawn.). > And if it doesn't, then what's the point? They shouldn't be sending you email anyway. Fair enough. And a good content filter, perhaps, could differentiate between the type of stuff you're willing to accept from them versus the stuff you're not. I really think that content filters, coupled with HTML-based or attachment-based permissions/restrictions, give us most of the tools that we need to distinguish between the stuff we might be interested in, versus the stuff we're not. And with a periodic summary E-mail of "suspicious mail being held pending decision" that allows us to conduct quick triage and decide how to handle each of those... t-canning, accepting (once), updating permissions list to allow, bouncing, or whatever. No matter how complicated these other technology-based solutions become, I don't see them as ultimately being very much more satisfactory, nor very much better at actually blocking the stuff that I don't want to see. 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 Jul 4 15:04:41 2003 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 PAA04910 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 15:04:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YVqv-0007Lh-ND for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:04:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64J4DYO028243 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 15:04:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YVqv-0007LS-JF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:04:13 -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 PAA04851; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 15:04:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YVqs-0001LU-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:04:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YVqs-0001LR-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:04:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YVqj-0007JH-Hg; Fri, 04 Jul 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 19YVqa-0007Gi-Pc for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:03:52 -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 PAA04813 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 15:03:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YVqX-0001L6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:03:49 -0400 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YVqW-0001L2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:03:49 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h64J3k2Q010305; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:03:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:03:46 -0700 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D22C9@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Alan DeKok'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: 6. Solutions - DNS based - DNSSEC (was Re: [Asrg] Re: DNSSEC not deployable) 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: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:03:45 -0700 > And anti-spam proposals which simply move the problem elsewhere, > without decreasing it's effects, are probably not worth the effort. I think they probably are. If we end up with BGP security and DNS security the only problems we go and fix them. Not in this group but in some other forum. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 15:57:46 2003 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 PAA06478 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 15:57:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YWgH-0002qy-Nb for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:57:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64JvH3R010956 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 15:57:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YWgH-0002qN-J7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:57:17 -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 PAA06471; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 15:57:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YWgF-0001jk-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:57:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YWgF-0001jh-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:57:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YWg0-0002iy-KS; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:57:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YWfo-0002in-2y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:56:48 -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 PAA06468 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 15:56:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YWfm-0001jO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:56:46 -0400 Received: from 000-228-558.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.131.213] helo=68.27.131.213) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YWfk-0001jI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:56:45 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030704155617.00bb0220@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , "'Alan DeKok'" , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: 6. Solutions - DNS based - DNSSEC (was Re: [Asrg] Re: DNSSEC not deployable) 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, 04 Jul 2003 15:56:18 -0400 At 12:03 PM 7/4/2003 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > And anti-spam proposals which simply move the problem elsewhere, > > without decreasing it's effects, are probably not worth the effort. > > >I think they probably are. If we end up with BGP security and DNS >security the only problems we go and fix them. Not in this group but >in some other forum. > > Phill I think we can consider this matter settled. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 16:24:39 2003 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 QAA06889 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:24:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YX6J-0005AT-SB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:24:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64KOBO1019859 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:24:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YX6J-0005AE-Nc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:24:11 -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 QAA06876; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:24:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YX6H-00025v-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:24:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YX6H-00025r-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:24:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YX69-00058G-63; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:24:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YX5f-00057w-Ql for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:23:31 -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 QAA06866 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:23:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YX5e-00025D-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:23:30 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YX5d-00025A-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:23:29 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19YX5d-0005IG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 21:23:29 +0100 In-Reply-To: <002a01c34255$e0fac4d0$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] Consent systems To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.7] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 82.69.7.27 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, 04 Jul 2003 21:23:29 +0100 > Gordon Peterson wrote: > > In my Permissions List concept, you don't have to send a > > specific "notice of permission" back to the unknown person. > In the framework for "consent based systems" it should be noted > that consent need not be communicated to senders. i.e. you should be > able to express consent to your ISP or your mail software without having > to tell anyone else. The communication of consent and the scope of any > communication would be personal choices made by specific users. The mere > fact that a consent based system may permit communication of consent > should not be taken to be a requirement that such communication occur. > Absolutely, some kind of "scope" field in a consent expression is essential. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 16:47:42 2003 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 QAA07441 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:47:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXSc-0007Cw-FK for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:47:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64KlEf8027702 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:47:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXSc-0007Cj-CR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:47:14 -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 QAA07431; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:47:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXSa-0002MO-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:47:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXSZ-0002ML-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:47:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXSO-00079O-Jq; Fri, 04 Jul 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 19YXRl-00075Y-1x for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:46:21 -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 QAA07412 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:46:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXRj-0002Ll-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:46:19 -0400 Received: from bay8-f3.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.3] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXRi-0002Li-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:46:18 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:45:47 -0700 Received: from 62.252.224.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:45:47 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.224.5] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fifth Response Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jul 2003 20:45:47.0471 (UTC) FILETIME=[3F242DF0:01C3426D] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 04 Jul 2003 20:45:47 +0000 Thankyou for your comments. My comments are in the body of the message below. This post refers to the 'GIEIS' system currently at version 0.003. An update was carried out on the next 4th July 2003. Datails of the 'CAA' have be released as well as details regarding the 'CICFS' filtration system. 'GIEIS' has an extensive list of systems to be added and they will appear as soon as the documentation can be written. The 'GIEIS' system can be viewed here at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. > >Message: 1 >Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:08:20 -0500 >From: Steven F Siirila >To: Mark McCarron >Cc: Steve Siirila , asrg@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fifth Response > >On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 08:04:23PM +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: > > > > > >On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 07:05:56PM +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: > > >> > > >> >> (1) In the short to medium term > > >> >> > > >> >> Devise a method of reasonably reliably identifying bulk spam, > > >> >> UCE or UBE and levying a charge on the senders (via any of >their > > >> >> upstream carriers, financial pain having the properties that >it > > >> >> does) which approaches that of any other method of commercial > > >> >> or non-private bulk message delivery and most of the TECHNICAL > > >> >> NETWORKING problems associated with spam - which are almost > > >> >> entirely due intractable volumes of traffic - would rapidly > > >> >> disappear. > > >> >> > > >> >> Mark's Response: > > >> >> > > >> >> The problem with this suggestion is that spammers are difficult to > > >> >> trace and even when traced there lacks the proper legal frameworks > > >> >> to do much about it. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >Spammers are only difficult to trace because there has been, until > > >> >recently, little incentive to trace them and no sanctions placed > > >> >on any injection points (which certainly can do most of the > > >> >necessary tracing if well configured) for failure to do so. > > >> > > >> > > >> Mark's Response: > > >> > > >> No. The Internet crosses many legal boundries across the planet. >With > > >> anonymous connections such as those by proxy (SOCKS, HTTP, etc) and > > >those > > >> by extensive proxy chains, simply back-tracing a tranmission is a >legal > > >> nightmare. Imagine attempting to get server logs from 40 or 50 > > >different > > >> countries and then not even being guarenteed that the culprit is >still > > >> there at the end of it all. 'GIEIS' would eliminate the need for all >of > > >> this. > > > > > >So would simply requiring reverse DNS as well as a record indicating > > >whether > > >or not an IP address has been designated as an MTA. This would make >all of > > >the open proxies, hacked desktops, and dynamic IP ranges unable to send > > >mail > > >directly to a site's MX server, forcing them to use an ISP's SMTP >gateway. > > >What you would have left is legitimate MTAs (some of which may be open > > >relays). > > >This is essentially where we are headed at our site by putting these >sorts > > >of > > >things into place gradually. > > >-- > > > > > > Marl's Response: > > > > I am afraid that would not work. Spammers would just use lists of > > resolvable domain names. Also, some form of centralisation would be > > required to maintain the list you describe. Another problem would arise > > from sending authorisation requests cleartext over the Internet, these > > could be intercepted and responded to allowing spammers access. This is > > exactly what 'GIEIS' architecture eliminates completely. > >The centralization you refer to is easily accomplished via DNS records. >"Authorization" is accomplished via simple DNS lookups much the same as >we currently use DNSbl lists already today. >-- Mark's Response: I'm afraid that is not a secure method. Firstly, I can alter the haeder of email messages to reflect any domain. You could quite happily look me up in all the DNS records you liked and I would be authorised every time. Also, communications between servers is an insecure element in this structure. This can be intercepted an modified at run-time, thus allowing access. Only 'GIEIS' secures against these methods, spoofing is impossible. Mark McCarron http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis _________________________________________________________________ Tired of 56k? Get a FREE BT Broadband connection 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 Fri Jul 4 16:48:29 2003 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 QAA07479 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:48:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXTO-0007Rz-Aq for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:48:02 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64Km2oq028581 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:48:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXTO-0007Pp-48 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:48:02 -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 QAA07460; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:47:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXTM-0002N4-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:48:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXTL-0002N1-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:47:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXTM-0007JX-JV; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:48:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXSZ-0007A6-KX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:47:11 -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 QAA07428 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:47:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXSX-0002MH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:47:09 -0400 Received: from bay8-f99.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.99] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXSW-0002Lq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:47:08 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:46:38 -0700 Received: from 62.252.224.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:46:38 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.224.5] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] The Solution To Spam - The First Response Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jul 2003 20:46:38.0545 (UTC) FILETIME=[5D957410:01C3426D] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id QAA07429 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 04 Jul 2003 20:46:38 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thankyou for your comments. My comments are in the body of the message=20 below. This post refers to the 'GIEIS' system currently at version 0.003= . =20 An update was carried out on the next 4th July 2003. Datails of the 'CAA= '=20 have be released as well as details regarding the 'CICFS' filtration syst= em.=20 'GIEIS' has an extensive list of systems to be added and they will appe= ar=20 as soon as the documentation can be written. The 'GIEIS' system can be viewed here at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. > >--__--__-- > >Message: 5 >From: "Ken Hirsch" >To: >Subject: Re: [Asrg] The Solution To Spam - The First Response >Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:51:19 -0400 > >From: "Kee Hinckley" > > Identify verification is only part of the proposal I was responding > > to. The other piece was verifying the good behavior of cert owner. > > That requires a clearing house for complaints, an arbitration > > process, > >I don't really expect that to be much of a problem. People are quite ea= ger >to give you free help to find violators and it's not expensive to put ou= t >spamtrap addresses. > Mark's Reponse: Agreed. There are problem countries with respects to this. >From what we've heard from ISP's, complaints are rare and they manage to >handle those without huge expense. From all sources I've seen, the over= lap >between IP addresses of spammers and IP addressses of legitimate email = is >tiny. > Mark's Response: I would agree with this too. If a company moves towards registration wit= h=20 cert. authorties and the expense associated with it, then they tend to ha= ve=20 excellent customer relations also. It is a reflection of the serious nat= ure=20 in which they view online business. >As long as problem M (below) is solved, there's really very little point= in >the certicate holder fighting revocation, since once identity is=20 >established >everybody else can use it to make their own determination as to whether = to >accept mail from them. > >Problem M (Multiple identities/certificates/IP addresses/domain=20 >names/etc.): > > and a mechanism for ensuring that the same person doesn't > > pop up under a different name (which is a different sort of > > verification problem, as you point out). That's where I'd expect the > > expense to come. > >This is key. But I think it is necessary for any permanent solution to = the >spam problem. Everything else I've seen proposed is either a temporary f= ix >in the spam arms race or is something (such as RMX) that would only be >useful if used in conjunction with something that solves problem M. > Mark's Response: The simplist way to achieve this is to raise the 'bar' for online=20 expenditure. Any company that would have a solid outlook on Internet bas= ed=20 trading would be able to afford in excess of =A35,000 a year to pay on pr= oper=20 digital registration systems and point-to-point contacts with businesses = and=20 clients. If a company would find this expenditure difficult to reach the= n=20 it is a clear indicator that they are not ready for an Internet Solution.= =20 It would assist small to medium size firms to seriously evalutate any=20 proposed web initiatives and detract from failed enterprise ventures. > > Never mind the question of how you certify someone in a country that > > doesn't have as codified a banking and company registration system as > > those where most SSL certs are issued. > >This is a good question. I would hope that any people on the list with >knowledge about how CA's operate, especially internationally, would come >forward. Do you have any comments about Problem M? I notice that there= is >a pbaker at VERISIGN.com. > Mark's Response: Problem M is difficult to deal with in the majority of the world. In the= =20 developed world the majority of businesses related all their information=20 against publically held data such as electoral rolls, credit information=20 etc. This is further related to government held files such as social=20 security (national insurance in UK) numbers and DMV (driver, motor,=20 vechical) records. In some countries relation to DMV is illegal. Also,=20 companies share information on customers who default payments. Ever deta= ils=20 can be searched and cross-referenced, this cuts down on the M factor but=20 does not eliminate it. In the financial world, the next step would be to= =20 equate it against risk. That is, how much risk do you want to take in=20 lending money to this individual and a credit limit is established. In=20 digital terms of authorising a cert. this sense of 'risk' is lost. It wo= uld=20 not be in a cert. companies interest to rate certificates independently a= nd=20 award a 'cutomer risk factor' assesment that was appended to the cert.=20 itself. Such as 'Bad Credit History', however, a public body like 'GIEIS= '=20 would. >My earlier proposal about getting CAs more or less directly involved in = the >spam problem might be misguided. As long as they can verify identity (i= n >the strong way, solving Problem M), then other organizations can build o= n >that to solve the spam problem. > Mark's Response: That is not just the problem. The problem is the SMTP protocol and how i= t=20 allows emails to be sent from any location. The spam problem cannot be=20 solved without restructuring the Internet slightly as proposed in 'GIEIS'. >The essence of my earlier proposal: >(1) mail servers can accept mail (without challenge-response) only if it= is >verified at either at the server level or the individual message level. >There are already technologies to do this (SSL client certificates, >IP-lookups to a verifying organization, S/MIME signatures, etc.). >The method must have a reliable, short chain to a responsible organizati= on >or individual with strong identity (see Problem M). >It is not necessary that everyone choose the same method. > Mark's Response: The verification process you describe requires a structure like 'GIEIS'. = =20 Also, it does not address domestic accounts were the majority of spamming= is=20 conducted from. You cannot expect everyone to sign up to a cert. authori= ty=20 and have their background checked. IP/Lookups are pointless because almo= st=20 every aspect of the system can be used in a breach attempt. It is even=20 possible to intercept the automated look-up request itself and substitute= a=20 reply. >(2) mail that cannot be so verified must be subject to challenge-respons= e >authentication. > Mark's Response: This will just annoy ligitimate users as spammers can bypass the system=20 easily anyway. >Conjecture: >It might be possible to grandfather-in existing SMTP servers that are kn= own >to be legitimate. But the fact that there are soooo many SMTP servers i= s a >problem. Not only it in cumbersome to manage so many millions of items, >more importantly it is hard to even gather the data about who is sending. >You may never have received a message from fredsgrocery.com, but it may=20 >well >have a legimate automated mailing system. (Obviously challenge-response= is >mostly a problem with mailing lists and other automated mail systems.) = If >you could find out all SMTP servers with a good reputation, you could >arrange to verify them by looking up, say,=20 >63.10.45.12.presumedinnocent.org. >But it is critical that this NOT apply to new/unknown servers and it wou= ld >be subject to easy revocation. > Mark's Response: Another factor is this, automated challange response systems may end up=20 challanging each other in an infinite loop. "Are you talking to me...". Mark McCarron. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis _________________________________________________________________ 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 Jul 4 16:48:31 2003 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 QAA07494 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:48:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXTP-0007TH-Ho for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:48:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64Km3TD028713 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:48:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXTP-0007T2-ET for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:48:03 -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 QAA07469; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:48:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXTN-0002NC-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:48:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXTM-0002N9-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:48:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXTN-0007Nf-Qy; Fri, 04 Jul 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 19YXTK-0007J8-E8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:47:58 -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 QAA07457 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:47:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXTI-0002Mx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:47:56 -0400 Received: from bay8-f117.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.117] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXTH-0002MW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:47:55 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:47:24 -0700 Received: from 62.252.224.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:47:24 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.224.5] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] The Solution To Spam - The First Response Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jul 2003 20:47:24.0823 (UTC) FILETIME=[792AEA70:01C3426D] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 04 Jul 2003 20:47:24 +0000 Thankyou for your comments. My comments are in the body of the message below. This post refers to the 'GIEIS' system currently at version 0.003. An update was carried out on the next 4th July 2003. Datails of the 'CAA' have be released as well as details regarding the 'CICFS' filtration system. 'GIEIS' has an extensive list of systems to be added and they will appear as soon as the documentation can be written. The 'GIEIS' system can be viewed here at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 10 >Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 21:25:33 -0400 >To: "Ken Hirsch" >From: Kee Hinckley >Subject: Re: [Asrg] The Solution To Spam - The First Response >Cc: > >At 4:51 PM -0400 7/3/03, Ken Hirsch wrote: > >From: "Kee Hinckley" > >> Identify verification is only part of the proposal I was responding > >> to. The other piece was verifying the good behavior of cert owner. > >> That requires a clearing house for complaints, an arbitration > >> process, > > > >I don't really expect that to be much of a problem. People are quite >eager > >to give you free help to find violators and it's not expensive to put out > >spamtrap addresses. > >So what happens when Roving gets a new customer who has a bad list >and 100 people accuse them of spamming? The problem isn't getting >people to complain about spammers. It's keeping potentially innocent >victims from getting shot. That's where the lawsuits start flying. >Just look at the wide range of BL's that exist. Clearly people have >very different ideas of what constitutes a spammer. >-- Mark's Response: 'GIEIS' prevents spam happening in the first place. The 'GIEIS' system will be able to identfy spammers in real-time and list the accounts emails were distributed to. 'GIEIS' then can perform a removal of those items. In time, it would become completely pointless. Mark McCarron http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis _________________________________________________________________ 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 Jul 4 16:49:31 2003 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 QAA07585 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:49:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXUO-0007gk-Aq for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:49:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64Kn4On029550 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:49:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXUO-0007gX-7v for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:49:04 -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 QAA07544; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:49:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXUM-0002OH-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:49:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXUL-0002OD-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:49:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXUL-0007YZ-TK; Fri, 04 Jul 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 19YXUK-0007YB-Ay for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:49:00 -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 QAA07541 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:48:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXUI-0002O9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:48:58 -0400 Received: from bay8-f16.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.16] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXUH-0002NS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:48:57 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:48:26 -0700 Received: from 62.252.224.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:48:26 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: 04 Jul 2003 20:48:26.0865 (UTC) FILETIME=[9E25C610:01C3426D] Subject: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 04 Jul 2003 20:48:26 +0000 Thankyou for your comments. My comments are in the body of the message below. This post refers to the 'GIEIS' system currently at version 0.003. An update was carried out on the next 4th July 2003. Datails of the 'CAA' have be released as well as details regarding the 'CICFS' filtration system. 'GIEIS' has an extensive list of systems to be added and they will appear as soon as the documentation can be written. The 'GIEIS' system can be viewed here at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. >--__--__-- > >Message: 13 >Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:32:27 -0400 >To: "Mark McCarron" , asrg@ietf.org >From: Yakov Shafranovich >Subject: 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS (was Re: [Asrg] Re: > 'GIEIS' - The Fourth Response (Esa Laitinen)) > >Mr. McCarron, > >Case in point: > >On July 1st EU countries started charging VAT taxes on most digital >transactions performed by non-EU companies to EU consumers. EU laws seem to >apply here to companies outside the jurisdiction of the EU. > Mark's Response: This is really import duty, a taxsation on goods imported into a country/region. This has two main puposes, generate revenue and to stabilize economies from the impact of cheap imports. This is a completely different legal area than a port scan. Mark McCarron http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis _________________________________________________________________ Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you. http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 16:50:34 2003 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 QAA07673 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:50:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXVO-00083m-GT for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:50:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64Ko6iM030976 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:50:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXVO-00083X-DP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:50:06 -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 QAA07646; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:50:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXVM-0002Q2-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:50:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXVL-0002Py-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:50:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXVJ-0007zv-33; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:50:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXVH-0007yu-6z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:49:59 -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 QAA07617 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:49:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXVF-0002PT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:49:57 -0400 Received: from bay8-f115.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.115] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXVE-0002Oj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:49:56 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:49:24 -0700 Received: from 62.252.224.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:49:23 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: 04 Jul 2003 20:49:24.0037 (UTC) FILETIME=[C0398750:01C3426D] Subject: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 04 Jul 2003 20:49:23 +0000 Thankyou for your comments. My comments are in the body of the message below. This post refers to the 'GIEIS' system currently at version 0.003. An update was carried out on the next 4th July 2003. Datails of the 'CAA' have be released as well as details regarding the 'CICFS' filtration system. 'GIEIS' has an extensive list of systems to be added and they will appear as soon as the documentation can be written. The 'GIEIS' system can be viewed here at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. >--__--__-- > >Message: 14 >Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:30:55 -0400 >To: "Mark McCarron" , asrg@ietf.org >From: Yakov Shafranovich >Subject: 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS (was Re: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' > - The Fifth Response) > >At 07:05 PM 7/3/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: > >[..] > > > >> > This is how current anti-spam systems work and I do not see any mass > >> > public outcry about it. > >> > >> > >>What anti-spam systems? When I look around my MTA, I see no anti-spam > >>systems, and were I to discover that the nice people who handle my MX > >>when the network here is down were to have instituted any on my behalf, > >>I would have their guts for a Beethoven sonata. > > > > > > > >Mark's Response: > > > >The main internet backbone is crawling with anti-spam filter > >software. All of it is based on heuristics. Heuristics is just an > >automated set of rules that will identify potential targets based on >given > >criteria. Also, for those who handle your MX, I really don't think they > >would care about your opinion unless you wanted to pay the bill for the > >extra traffic. > >The "main Internet backbone" cannot be crawling with anti-spam filters >since filtering is the function on the receiver's end only while the >backbone facilitates communications between end points. > Mark's Response: That is not entirely accurate. Filters are in place throughout the web at various points. If you ever get a chance to run a packet analysis on a good node on the net, one with high volume traffic, then you will notice all sorts of different equiptment analysing and filtering the web. There is a lot of stuff you wouldn't expect. Mark McCarron. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis _________________________________________________________________ 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 Fri Jul 4 16:51:33 2003 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 QAA07712 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:51:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXWM-0008Dz-2Z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:51:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64Kp6N3031611 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:51:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXWL-0008Dm-Vh for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:51:05 -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 QAA07699; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:51:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXWJ-0002RH-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:51:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXWE-0002RA-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:50:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXWG-00087h-0o; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:51:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXVm-00086v-1L for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:50:30 -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 QAA07651 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:50:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXVk-0002QL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:50:28 -0400 Received: from bay8-f106.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.106] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXVj-0002PO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:50:27 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:49:56 -0700 Received: from 62.252.224.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:49:55 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: 04 Jul 2003 20:49:56.0037 (UTC) FILETIME=[D34C5750:01C3426D] Subject: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 04 Jul 2003 20:49:55 +0000 Thankyou for your comments. My comments are in the body of the message below. This post refers to the 'GIEIS' system currently at version 0.003. An update was carried out on the next 4th July 2003. Datails of the 'CAA' have be released as well as details regarding the 'CICFS' filtration system. 'GIEIS' has an extensive list of systems to be added and they will appear as soon as the documentation can be written. The 'GIEIS' system can be viewed here at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. >--__--__-- > >Message: 16 >Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:42:36 -0400 >To: Steven F Siirila , > Mark McCarron >From: Yakov Shafranovich >Subject: 6. Proposals - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS (was Re: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' > - The Fifth Response) >Cc: asrg@ietf.org > >At 03:48 PM 7/3/2003 -0500, Steven F Siirila wrote: > >.... > >On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 08:11:49PM +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: > >... > > > Mark's Response: > > > > > > I think you are missing the point that it can be very easily > > bypassed. Its > > > not secure like 'GIEIS'. > > > >Bypassed? Not unless you control the IP address in-addr.arpa delegation > >records as well as the domain name delgation records which correspond to > >the PTR records. > >..... > >Keep in mind the DNS-Sec standards exist and ICANN is even implementing >some of them. Security of the Domain Name System is being addressed. > >Yakov Mark's Response: That's not the issue. SMTP can be altered to reflect any domain. Any system like this can be bypassed from numerous angles. It simply cannot be secured unless something like 'GIEIS' is implemented. Start thinking like a hacker, and try and pull your ideas apart. Mark McCarron. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis _________________________________________________________________ Tired of 56k? Get a FREE BT Broadband connection 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 Fri Jul 4 16:54:32 2003 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 QAA07756 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:54:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXZF-00008K-7w for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:54:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64Ks5fQ000505 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:54:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXZF-000084-0u for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:54:05 -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 QAA07742; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:54:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXZC-0002TW-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:54:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXZB-0002TS-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:54:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXZB-0008Tj-68; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:54:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXYs-0008TS-5a for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:53:42 -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 QAA07736 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:53:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXYq-0002T7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:53:40 -0400 Received: from bay8-f21.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.21] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXYp-0002Sd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:53:39 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:53:08 -0700 Received: from 62.252.240.249 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:53:08 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.240.249] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] My apologies to this list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jul 2003 20:53:08.0625 (UTC) FILETIME=[4616F010:01C3426E] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 04 Jul 2003 20:53:08 +0000 Thankyou for your comments. My comments are in the body of the message below. This post refers to the 'GIEIS' system currently at version 0.003. An update was carried out on the next 4th July 2003. Datails of the 'CAA' have be released as well as details regarding the 'CICFS' filtration system. 'GIEIS' has an extensive list of systems to be added and they will appear as soon as the documentation can be written. The 'GIEIS' system can be viewed here at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. >Message: 23 >From: "Hondin de Goot" >To: asrg@ietf.org >Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 08:14:57 -0500 >Subject: [Asrg] My apologies to this list Mark's Response: About time. >Thankyou for your forbearance regarding my two or three >postings here recently. By way of excuse, I would like >to explain my reasons for making them. Mark's Response: About time too. >I was appalled when I saw the flood of energy and serious >engagement with Carron's outright nonsense that a number >people I know to be excellent network engineers put into >carefully reasoned responses when he started posting to >the RIPE anti-spam wg list, but not quite as appalled as >I was at seeing how quickly he could then construct >apparently meaningful - although, in fact, equally >nonsensical - extensions to his buzzword edifice out >of the quite undigested information he was thereby >obtaining, mainly because it seemed to me that that >ability could easily introduce, at this specific time, >serious political impediments to at least some serious >considerations of rational technical solutions. > Mark's Response: If anyone can translate this for me into the English language then I would care to respond. >With the best will in the world it is not possible to >describe the majority of today's politicians and leading >citizens, etc, as being particularly technically literate. >Equally, it is difficult to avoid the concluion that they >spend a lot of time dealing with their various impossible >tasks by clutching at straws. Mark's Response: He's off for a wander again.:) > >Because of our unfortunate, species-wide inability to >perceive exponential trends until they resemble onrushing >locomotives rather more than they resemble trends, now is >the time when effecting solutions to the problem of spam >is being rapidly co-opted into the sphere of the political >rather than the technical. At such times, fraudsters of >all varieties, from simple intellectual on up (or down, >depending on your attitude to filthy lucre), are far more >easily able to grab the attention of besieged legislators >and others than in less stressful times, and some of them >have the energy to attempt it. That they can sometimes >succeed is evidenced by the numerous occasions when the >US Congress (say) has been considering three or even four >bills, each sponsored by different representatives acting, >without personal comprehension of the subject, on "expert >advice", some of it clearly received from highly suspect >"experts", all addressing the same technological matter. >And in such cases, those "experts" who can ALSO cloak >their presentations in an ambience of business, legal >and political attitudes and buzzwords (however shakily >deployed) are often able to command a hearing that their >technical theses alone should not objectively afford them. >Of course there are many more examples of this than just >those that can be found in the annals of the US Congress. >The political process, even in the most disciplined of >assemblies, is a highly fractured and unpredictable one, >and only seldom a broad clear path to a rational outcome. > Mark's Response: You seem to be very paranoid about a central agency. Maybe you do not realise I am from Ireland??? What global agenda do the Irish have??? Drinking, parties, being overly socialable???? Could you picture the Irish Police force operating black helecopters or stealth operations??? I think we only have 10 aircraft in our military. I can't get this image of a little Garda (Irish Police) officer standing at the bottom of some mountain in Donegal somewhere and suddenly the whole mountain open ups to reveal a vast military complex. :) >From that point of view and from a perception that there >might not be much time to spare, I decided to try to provoke >Mr Carron into revealing the extraordinary paucity of his >understanding of the Internet in relation to spam or >anything else (even my cat, just from sleeping on top >of the monitor, has managed to pick up rather more :) >to as wide an range of genuine experts whose opinion was >likely to be canvassed in various quarters as possible: >it is by no means clear that bodies such as even the IETF >have any assured authority in the midst of mass political >hysteria, but the opinions of many of those associated with >it will certainly be sought on an individual basis. Mark's Response: It must be noted that a large percentage of those posting opposition to 'GIEIS' have self-motovated interests. I have not seen a single post yet that demonstrates a clear and descriptive method of bypassing 'GIEIS'. This is the problem, 'GIEIS' cannot be bypassed. As you pointed out, I am surrounded by 'Genuine Experts', very few of them can understand 'GIEIS' and for those that do grasp it realise it poses the single largest threat ever against digital cert. authorities, anti-virus software companies, anti-spam filtration software companies, etc. Not to mention spammers themselves. As this is an open forum, the same people could have several different accounts attempting to bolster opinion. > >Now that he has, in short order, told people like Phillip >Hallam-Baker that they will need to acquire an understanding >of networking technology in order to appreciate his ideas, >implied that engineers of the calibre of Esa Laitinen are >basically irrelevant Finns, dissed the elegant simplicity >of Steven Siirila's inputs, and much, much more (including >discomforting many with his PNW approach to "intellectual >property"), all in a persisting archive that would be hard >to assert had subsequently been hacked to discredit him, >I'm satisfied he has been sufficiently "outed" (to borrow >a technical term from another discipline) and will return >to my life of alternately dozing and eating, as before. Mark's Response: The nature of the 'GIEIS' architecture is complicated and is not only based on a deep understanding of networks, but of the architecture of programming as well. This maybe why some are haing problems with the security implementations of 'GIEIS'. To appreciate 'GIEIS' fully you need to be a hacker/spammer and if you are one, well, you won't really appreciate it. > >As an aside, and on the subject of archives, it has been >pointed out to me that the full perspicacity of Carron's >mathematical, chemical and physics insights (which will be >clear to many reading here) can be found in the archive at >http://web.archive.org/web/20000824014035/http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/16/giza.htm. >The same material from his original ntlworld website is >also available on web.archive.org, but in a rather less >compact and easily read format. I suspect that those >reading here will be rather less able to assess the >egyptological quality of his thought, but it seems >likely that a rough guess would serve as well. (The URL >quoted above may need some manual concatenation to work). > Mark's Response: If you want to discuss Egyptology then come to the Atlantis Rising boards and give us your insights. Personally, I think when its scientifically established that vases from Persian grave sites (Before Christ) are batteries that give off a 1.5 Volt charge for 14 days some questions should be asked. Or maybe when out of 80 or so pyramids found not a single body has been found in one. How about carbon datings dating the Great Pyramid to at least a thousand years before hand? Maybe the most surprising is the medical tests done with pyramids on mice, by the Russian Science Academy. A virus was introduced into two sets of mice and one was housed in a pyramid the others were not. The ones housed in the pyramid has a survival rate of 60% compared to those outside with a rate of 15%. With facts like this, the area is worth re-examining. >Finally, I would like to make a point about a core value >(in the sense of its being extremely valuable to users) >of the original design of the Internet: that of end-to-end >connectivity. In terms of SMTP, that includes the ability >to operate a server. However much use of the Internet has >grown by numbers of hosts, users are users and what was of >value to them 20 years ago generally remains of value to >their successors today. Fairly recently I helped set up >some mail servers for the associates of a tiny charity >which, given the social value and overall cost of its >work, is grossly under funded (how unusual). Because of >the extreme sensitivity of much of their communication >in terms of client confidence and the reluctance of non >technical persons to deploy anything in the way of >cryptography, the small but significant security >enhancement that direct delivery of some communications >to their own servers, rather than to their ISPs' disk >based mail spools, can provide is of great value (and I'm >sure that theirs is not an especially unusual case, in >almost any context - personal, political, small business >or institutional). In my opinion, any solution would be >less than optimal if it involved sacrificing too much more >of the already much-diluted ability to establish end-to-end >connections or priced low budget MTAs out of existence >(although I see absolutely no problems with punitively >coercing them into compliance). Mark's Response: With 'GIEIS' the end-to-end connectivity would remain. 'GIEIS' is a protocol change, a software solution. There will be no mass movement of servers, just software updates. Touching story, however, all communications are routed to her through her ISP and therefore are spooled to disk. The Internet is a basic star topology from client to Internet gateway, from that point it becomes a web structure. > >This has been the first time in a decade or more that I >have posted to a public forum and the first time I have >ever done so using a pseudonym (it means "dog in the >gutter" and is to be seen on many signs throughout >Holland and parts of Belgium - often with a graphic >resembling Mr Carron's musings - as an injunction to >urban animal lovers). It's been more fun than I care >to admit being vicariously rude to Mr Carron, and sorry >about the pseudonym: loony-kook filter and all.... I'll >go back to sleep now, using that faulty unsubscribe button - >what's that they say about "third time luc > Mark's Response: I would well believe it and understand why it has been so long. Why the pseudonym? Ah, Belgium, that explains everything now... Still see you haven't post anything about how to bypass 'GIEIS' or that you even understand how it works. Mark McCarron http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis _________________________________________________________________ Tired of 56k? Get a FREE BT Broadband connection 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 Fri Jul 4 16:54:42 2003 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 QAA07773 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:54:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXZF-00008a-A7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:54:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64Ks5bJ000521 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:54:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXZF-00008B-6g for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:54:05 -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 QAA07746; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:54:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXZC-0002TZ-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:54:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXZB-0002TT-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:54:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXZB-0008UD-IU; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:54:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXYt-0008TX-Tw for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:53:44 -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 QAA07739 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:53:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXYr-0002TE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:53:41 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXYr-0002TA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:53:41 -0400 Received: from [63.186.232.111] (account nazgul HELO [63.186.240.231]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2512759; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:53:32 -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] Consent Systems and permission 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, 4 Jul 2003 16:51:00 -0400 At 2:16 PM -0500 7/4/03, gep2@terabites.com wrote: >What *most* of us do (sooner or later) is to simply buy a domain name which is >PERMANENTLY yours (well, as long as you pay the renewal fees...) and That is definitely not what "most" internet users do. And we are trying to define a system for internet users, not "us". >For those people who aren't clever enough to have their own permanent domain >name, then they have to notify their correspondents. But that's no different >for the sender than if they DIDN'T have a permissions list or other anti-spam >technology in place. It is different in the context we were discussing. What we were discussing was how to notify clients when it was necessary to reestablish consent to communicate. I understand that this doesn't apply to the system you proposed, since it assumes that consent is limited to html vs. non-html. However it does apply to the other consent systems that we were discussing. >Yeah, I just got an E-mail earlier today from one of my neighbors with his >E-mail address change (also from attbi.com to comcast.net) with no less than >almost 17k of To: addresses...! (Nothing too embarassing to him though, I >looked...! ;-) ) Some people really are clueless. Actually in those cases I think you need to look to the software vendor. As far as I've been told, there is no way to export and then import an address book reliably from some major email packages. So those people who've figured out that they can do it by mailing to everyone are actually being rather clever. > > 2. If a consent token does degenerate to a password, then two >problems occur. One, it can be sold along with your email address, >just as email addresses are sold now. > >That would only be true if the token were not specific to a given sender. Which is precisely what I said. Tracing my conversation back you'll see that I came to the conclusion that it would because there needs to be a way to give consent over the phone and to web sites. Since web sites and web-related databases aren't going to suddenly sprout a consent key, there needs to be a way to embed one in the email address. Managing a system like that manually is not feasible. (I have enough trouble managing my address+theirdomain@somewhere.com system, given company name changes and problems with sites that don't like + in an email address.) Therefore I concluded that a consent token would degenerate to a password. I'd be very happy if someone could show me a reasonable way whereby that wouldn't be the case. >Oh, give me a break... it could be as simple as some kind of a hash >function or >checksum or something. Compared to many of the other things we discuss here >routinely, that's child's play. Not on a business card, over the phone or without a piece of software that will generate it for you and notify both the web browser and the email software. (Okay, I'll grant you cut and paste in the last case :-). > > ....and a knowledge of what addresses will be used to contact >you. (Again, I think people working on this should focus first on a >URL scheme for whitelisting. E.g. >whitelist:some-piece-of-information-identifying-senders.) > >Why are some people SO determined to make this Web-based? While that is a I have no interest in making it web based. I want to solve a very real problem. I assert that the majority of mailing lists people sign up for are signed up for by entering their email address on a web page. Therefore a consent system needs to take that into account. That's all. The system itself should *not* be web based. >at ANY time. To me, that sounds like their E-mail address IS their token, and >the MUA/MTA at your client end/ISP/destination domain simply looks up the >current permissions associated with THAT sender. Simple, direct, efficient. Except that the same vendor may use multiple different email addresses. In fact more and more of the vendor email I see not only is using per-recipient from addresses, they are changing every single time they send a message. (They appear to be encoding not only the recipient (for bounce removal) but also the id of the message they sent.) Obviously we could require that those systems change. But it's yet another complication to consider. >I really think that content filters, coupled with HTML-based or >attachment-based >permissions/restrictions, give us most of the tools that we need to >distinguish >between the stuff we might be interested in, versus the stuff we're not. I'm actually tending in that direction myself (although I think the HTML side of things is a red-herring, but we'll agree to disagree there). I also don't find that "content" filtering is that necessary, but certainly filtering of one sort or another can be very effective for an end user. I look at the C/R systems primarily as a way of dealing with gray lists, and the consent systems as ways to deal with subscriptions. Otherwise I don't feel that a great deal of change is required to fix the system. Assuming that we can protect enough user's mailboxes, I hope (although I could be wrong) that we'll cut off enough of the financial incentive such that the volume problems will drop for ISPs. (I've got a lot riding on that bet, because somewhere.com is riding just behind striker on the volume curve). -- 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 Jul 4 17:04:35 2003 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 RAA08225 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 17:04:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXix-00015v-LA for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:04:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64L47T6004201 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 17:04:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXix-00015g-Gy for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:04:07 -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 RAA08218; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 17:04:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXiv-0002cK-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:04:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXiu-0002cH-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:04:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YXir-00012a-0m; Fri, 04 Jul 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 19YXiB-000126-3d for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:03:19 -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 RAA08201 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 17:03:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXi9-0002bb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:03:17 -0400 Received: from 000-228-558.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.131.213] helo=68.27.131.213) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YXi6-0002bS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:03:15 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030704170246.00b99290@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] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS 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, 04 Jul 2003 17:02:47 -0400 At 08:48 PM 7/4/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >... > >>--__--__-- >> >>Message: 13 >>Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:32:27 -0400 >>To: "Mark McCarron" , asrg@ietf.org >>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>Subject: 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS (was Re: [Asrg] Re: >> 'GIEIS' - The Fourth Response (Esa Laitinen)) >> >>Mr. McCarron, >> >>Case in point: >> >>On July 1st EU countries started charging VAT taxes on most digital >>transactions performed by non-EU companies to EU consumers. EU laws seem to >>apply here to companies outside the jurisdiction of the EU. > > >Mark's Response: > >This is really import duty, a taxsation on goods imported into a >country/region. This has two main puposes, generate revenue and to >stabilize economies from the impact of cheap imports. This is a >completely different legal area than a port scan. I will spell it out: EU LAWS SEEM TO APPLY HERE TO COMPANIES OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE EU. That was the point I was trying to make. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 17:28:49 2003 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 RAA08784 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 17:28:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YY6N-000322-8y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:28:22 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64LSJ4I011648 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 17:28:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YY6N-00031n-4U for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:28:19 -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 RAA08655; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 17:28:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YY6K-0002qi-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:28:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YY6K-0002qf-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:28:16 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YY65-0002oa-CE; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:28:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YY5b-0002oO-2t for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:27:31 -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 RAA08593 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 17:27:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YY5Y-0002oy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:27:28 -0400 Received: from 000-228-558.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.131.213] helo=68.27.131.213) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YY5W-0002ot-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:27:27 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030704170406.00bb66d8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Mark McCarron" , hondin.degoot@programmer.net, asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] My apologies to this list Cc: Paul Judge 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, 04 Jul 2003 17:27:01 -0400 Mr. McCarron, If you want to flame each other, please do this off the list. Additionally, IMHO I think it would be better for you to setup a separate discussion area or mailing list like the author of the SPF proposal did (http://spf.pobox.com/, spf-announce@v2.listbox.com and spf-discuss@v2.listbox.com), where you can work out the details of your proposal. You can provide regular summaries of changes to the list just like with SPF - a link to the site is more than enough - no need to repost answers to every question. At this point we are trying to work out the details of the consent framework before delving into technical details of specific proposals so it would be useful to reduce the volume on the list to relevant topics. Yakov At 08:53 PM 7/4/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >... > >>Message: 23 >>From: "Hondin de Goot" >>To: asrg@ietf.org >>Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 08:14:57 -0500 >>Subject: [Asrg] My apologies to this list > >.... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 17:55:37 2003 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 RAA09410 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 17:55:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YYWM-0004tr-8O for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:55:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64LtAws018834 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 17:55:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YYWM-0004th-2i for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:55:10 -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 RAA09390; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 17:55:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YYWJ-0003EP-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:55:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YYWI-0003EM-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:55:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YYWD-0004qR-DW; Fri, 04 Jul 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 19YYVH-0004iS-Fk for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:54:03 -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 RAA09381 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 17:53:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YYVE-0003Dp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:54:00 -0400 Received: from 000-228-558.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.131.213] helo=68.27.131.213) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YYVD-0003Dh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:53:59 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030704175218.00bc4e90@std5.imagineis.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] 4. Survey of Solutions - Consent Model In-Reply-To: <002901c34254$cd23fe00$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030703153840.00b6cc50@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: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:53:36 -0400 I am thinking of reformatting the document along the lines of RFC 2778 which defines a model for instant messaging. Tell me what you think. Yakov At 01:50 PM 7/4/2003 -0400, Bob Wyman wrote: >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >I wrote up an document on the consent model > I think it would be good to strip from the document the general >discussion of the spam problem and focus on the technical framework. One >can assume that the nature of the problem is well understood -- the >"evils" of spam are well-known problems. As it stands now, the >discussion of motivation for the proposal simply makes the document much >larger without really adding much. > Also, while I would certainly include a short (one-paragraph?) >section on motivation and ensure that the paragraph mentions spam, I >think the document should focus on "consent" not "spam." Ideally, spam >would only be explicitly mentioned in a short description of motivation. >The rest of the document should only talk about consent. The challenge >of the document is to define how consent is expressed and managed. Such >a framework can have value dealing with more problems than simply >providing part of a solution to the spam problem. > In general, I think it is not useful to quote other documents at >length. Given hypertext, we're able to easily and effectively reference >other documents without burdening every document with large extracts of >others. Ideally, the consent framework would be a concise description >where every line had value on its own and wasn't simply a repetition of >data found elsewhere. The simpler the document is, the easier it will be >for people to understand it and evaluate it. > I think there are some labeling problems in the current >document. For instance, a "lookup in a realtime black list" is not a >"policy enforcement mechanism." Rather it is a means for determining >some attribute of a message which can then be fed into the policy >enforcement mechanism. (i.e. Message has the "sent from blacklisted >node" attribute. Thus, the enforcement mechanism -- which is distinct >from the mechanism that did the blacklist lookup -- decides to reject >the message or put it in a graybox.) The same comment applies to most of >the other things mentioned in this section. They are all means to >discover attributes of a message -- it is only anecdotal that most >implementations of these methods are bound to specific enforcement >policies. The framework should clearly identify the distinctions between >components of a system. > > bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 18:13:35 2003 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 SAA10487 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 18:13:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YYnk-0006Bj-GP for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:13:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64MD8pk023781 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 18:13:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YYnk-0006BU-Cb for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:13:08 -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 SAA10440; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 18:13:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YYnh-0003KO-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:13:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YYng-0003KL-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:13:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YYnd-00069V-Ca; Fri, 04 Jul 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 19YYnN-00069C-FD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:12:45 -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 SAA10406 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 18:12:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YYnK-0003KA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:12:42 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YYnK-0003K7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:12:42 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip203-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.203]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id ACDCC36BD5 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 18:12:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 4 Jul 2003 18:12:39 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] The Solution To Spam - The First Response Message-ID: <20030704181239.D10667@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 kenhirsch@myself.com on Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:51:19PM -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, 4 Jul 2003 18:12:39 -0400 On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:51:19PM -0400, Ken Hirsch wrote > Conjecture: > It might be possible to grandfather-in existing SMTP servers that are > known to be legitimate. But the fact that there are soooo many SMTP > servers is a problem. Not only it in cumbersome to manage so many > millions of items, more importantly it is hard to even gather the > data about who is sending. You may never have received a message > from fredsgrocery.com, but it may well have a legimate automated > mailing system. (Obviously challenge-response is mostly a problem > with mailing lists and other automated mail systems.) A legitimate list would have no problem with asking on their webpage that you whitelist "mail.fredsgrocery.com" before subscribing. A (sub)domain name is better than IP addresses or From: or Envelope-Sender because... - Envelope-Sender can be forged and many MUA's don't parse it. - From: can be forged... *AND REQUIRES THAT THE MESSAGE BE ACCEPTED FOR PARSING* before you can make a decision - a (sub)domain name can change IP addresses transparently if the host changes IP addresses. And it can handle multiple addresses, e.g. ... [waltdnes@m433 waltdnes]$ host cnn.com cnn.com has address 64.236.24.20 cnn.com has address 64.236.24.28 cnn.com has address 64.236.16.20 cnn.com has address 64.236.16.52 cnn.com has address 64.236.16.84 cnn.com has address 64.236.16.116 cnn.com has address 64.236.24.4 cnn.com has address 64.236.24.12 > If you could find out all SMTP servers with a good reputation, you > could arrange to verify them by looking up, say, > 63.10.45.12.presumedinnocent.org. This seems to be a mirror image of current DNSbls which list bad actors. I think the current approach is better. There are, hopefully, fewer "bad guys" than "good guys" so the logistics of listing the "bad guys" are easier. > But it is critical that this NOT apply to new/unknown servers and > it would be subject to easy revocation. Everybody starts off presumed innocent until listed in a DNSbl, which takes care of your worry about new/unknown servers. Note that "one listing" can include IP address ranges, such as is the case with residential (usually dynamic) IP addresses. Another advantage of today's DNSbls is that they're *NOT* official and "accountable". MAPS was the ultimate example of what happens when you play by Marquis of Queensbury Rules against enemies who play dirty. MAPS are good-guys, but good intentions aren't enough. Other DNSbls have been accused of list-first-ask-questions-later. But giving spammers umpteen levels of appeal while a shell company continues to blast away is a joke. As soon as one company is finally blocked, they switch to another numbered shell company that was registered for a minimal price, and resume spamming. Again, they'll pound away on your inbox for weeks or months while the appeals process continues. -- 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 Jul 4 18:50:53 2003 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 SAA11587 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 18:50:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YZNr-0000Sn-E2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:50:27 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h64MoRN2001777 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 18:50:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YZNr-0000Sa-BL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:50:27 -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 SAA11573; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 18:50:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YZNo-0003cF-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:50:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YZNn-0003cC-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:50:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YZNR-0000PM-AT; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:50:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YZNP-0000On-Uh for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:49:59 -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 SAA11564 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 18:49:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YZNM-0003bv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:49:56 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YZNM-0003bs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 18:49:56 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip203-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.203]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1CF1F36929 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 18:49:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 4 Jul 2003 18:49:55 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam Message-ID: <20030704184954.E10667@m433> References: <843choanwv.fsf@cenderis.demon.co.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: <843choanwv.fsf@cenderis.demon.co.uk>; from Bruce.Stephens@isode.com on Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 05:33:52PM +0100 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 4 Jul 2003 18:49:54 -0400 On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 05:33:52PM +0100, Bruce Stephens wrote > If a person unknown to me can send me an email that I want to receive > (and I want them to be able to), then that person can send me unwanted > email (and I don't want them to be able to do that, but I see no way > to stop it without also preventing the possibility of wanted email). You've hit the nail on the head there. This has given me an inspiration that'll appear as a long message in a day or so. > So I think the best way to attack spam is to make sending email > expensive (in some way---this may involve computational cost rather > than some kind of financial framework) such that anybody sending me > email thinks a bit first (and so it won't be worthwhile sending to > large numbers of people). So this would be attacking the volume part > of usual definitions of spam. A few problems... 1) I don't throw away a pefectly good computer and buy the latest/greatest every year. This email is coming from a 433 mhz machine with 128 megs of RAM. How do I compare with someone who's just bought a 512 meg machine that runs at 3 gigahertz ? 2) A beowolf cluster of cast-off 1 gigahertz machines will blow the "computational cost" to smithereens. -- 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 Jul 4 20:15:48 2003 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 UAA13285 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 20:15:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yahz-00060B-S0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:15:20 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h650FJx0023065 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 20:15:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yahz-0005zw-Oj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:15:19 -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 UAA13269; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 20:15:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yahx-0004HA-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:15:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yahx-0004H7-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:15:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yahh-0005xn-H7; Fri, 04 Jul 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 19YahX-0005xC-Nx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:14:51 -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 UAA13261 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 20:14:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YahV-0004Gs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:14:49 -0400 Received: from earth.tc.umn.edu ([160.94.5.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YahU-0004Gg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:14:48 -0400 Received: by earth.tc.umn.edu; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 19:14:47 -0500 From: Steven F Siirila To: Mark McCarron Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fifth Response Message-ID: <20030705001447.GA21195@earth.tc.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: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 19:14:47 -0500 On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 08:45:47PM +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: > >> > > >> >So would simply requiring reverse DNS as well as a record indicating > >> >whether > >> >or not an IP address has been designated as an MTA. This would make > >all of > >> >the open proxies, hacked desktops, and dynamic IP ranges unable to send > >> >mail > >> >directly to a site's MX server, forcing them to use an ISP's SMTP > >gateway. > >> >What you would have left is legitimate MTAs (some of which may be open > >> >relays). > >> >This is essentially where we are headed at our site by putting these > >sorts > >> >of > >> >things into place gradually. > >> >-- > >> > >> > >> Marl's Response: > >> > >> I am afraid that would not work. Spammers would just use lists of > >> resolvable domain names. Also, some form of centralisation would be > >> required to maintain the list you describe. Another problem would arise > >> from sending authorisation requests cleartext over the Internet, these > >> could be intercepted and responded to allowing spammers access. This is > >> exactly what 'GIEIS' architecture eliminates completely. > > > >The centralization you refer to is easily accomplished via DNS records. > >"Authorization" is accomplished via simple DNS lookups much the same as > >we currently use DNSbl lists already today. > >-- > > > Mark's Response: > > I'm afraid that is not a secure method. Firstly, I can alter the haeder of > email messages to reflect any domain. You could quite happily look me up > in all the DNS records you liked and I would be authorised every time. > Also, communications between servers is an insecure element in this > structure. This can be intercepted an modified at run-time, thus allowing > access. Only 'GIEIS' secures against these methods, spoofing is impossible. You apparently have no clue about what I've been talking about, instead choosing to promote your product. Of course headers are forgeable. Never once did I talk about headers. I believe others on this list know exactly what I'm talking about, so there is no point to continuing this thread any further. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 20:26:39 2003 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 UAA13366 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 20:26:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YasS-0006rD-JJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:26:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h650Q80G026353 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 20:26:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YasS-0006qy-GM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:26:08 -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 UAA13349; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 20:26:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YasQ-0004Iz-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:26:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YasP-0004Iw-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:26:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YasL-0006ny-6K; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:26:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YasH-0006nm-22 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:25:57 -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 UAA13346 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 20:25:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YasE-0004Ir-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:25:54 -0400 Received: from usergg026.dsl.pipex.com ([62.190.174.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YasD-0004Il-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:25:54 -0400 Received: from cenderis.demon.co.uk ([62.49.17.254]) by usergg026.dsl.pipex.com via TCP (with SMTP (internal)) with ESMTP for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 01:25:05 +0100 To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam References: <843choanwv.fsf@cenderis.demon.co.uk> <20030704184954.E10667@m433> From: Bruce Stephens In-Reply-To: <20030704184954.E10667@m433> (Walter Dnes's message of "Fri, 4 Jul 2003 18:49:54 -0400") Message-ID: <848yrdx1k1.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: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 01:25:02 +0100 Walter Dnes writes: > On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 05:33:52PM +0100, Bruce Stephens wrote [...] >> So I think the best way to attack spam is to make sending email >> expensive (in some way---this may involve computational cost rather >> than some kind of financial framework) such that anybody sending me >> email thinks a bit first (and so it won't be worthwhile sending to >> large numbers of people). So this would be attacking the volume >> part of usual definitions of spam. > > A few problems... > > 1) I don't throw away a pefectly good computer and buy the > latest/greatest every year. This email is coming from a 433 mhz > machine with 128 megs of RAM. How do I compare with someone who's > just bought a 512 meg machine that runs at 3 gigahertz ? Well, the 3GHz one is presumably about 1 order of magnitude faster (give or take). So if the usual cost of sending an email is 1 second on a 3GHz CPU, then it might take 10 seconds on your slower one (or, the 3GHz machine can send 10 times as many emails in the same time). For *really* slow machines (such as mobile phones), I imagine the ISP could charge per email, and provide the CPU power. Something like that. > 2) A beowolf cluster of cast-off 1 gigahertz machines will blow the > "computational cost" to smithereens. Yes, that's a real possibility. It's still adding to the cost, however: running clusters of cheap PCs is only relatively cheap, it'll still take some running. A more likely attack would be to include hashcash calculating code in screensavers, Javascript on web pages, worms, etc., so you use the zillions of PCs that other people are maintaining. [...] _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 20:33:36 2003 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 UAA13504 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 20:33:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YazA-0007CU-Va for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:33:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h650X4E8027672 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 20:33:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YazA-0007CF-RD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:33:04 -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 UAA13497; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 20:33:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yaz8-0004Oq-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:33:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yaz8-0004On-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:33:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yaz7-00079H-Hc; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:33:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YayI-000791-UU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:32:10 -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 UAA13473 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 20:32:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YayG-0004Ns-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:32:08 -0400 Received: from mxsmta01.inithost.com ([209.235.30.103] helo=mxsmta01.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YayG-0004Nm-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 20:32:08 -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 <20030705003358.GAMR6624.mxsmta01.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 20:33:58 -0400 Message-ID: <3F061BD5.4020504@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: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Summary to date? References: <002401c3424f$1882a2d0$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> <002401c3424f$1882a2d0$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> <5.2.0.9.2.20030704141115.00ba1050@std5.imagineis.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030704141115.00ba1050@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, 04 Jul 2003 20:29:09 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks Yakov. That is what I thought but with all the postings I was begining to wonder exactly what was going to be proposed. Chuck Wegrzyn Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > At 01:15 PM 7/4/2003 -0400, C. Wegrzyn wrote: > >> I've noticed recently that we have 3 or 4 separate conversations >> going on in parallel. I am finding it very difficult to keep things >> straight. I was wondering if it would be possible to get a summary of >> exactly where we are in ASRG. >> >> Regards, >> Chuck Wegrzyn > > > We are trying to steer towards defining a consent framework but since > the ASRG is seen sometimes as the authority on spam issues, every > proposal under the sun makes its way here. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 4 22:22:52 2003 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 WAA15157 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 22:22:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ycgy-0006Jz-OL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:22:25 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h652MOeI024294 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 22:22:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ycgy-0006Jl-Kq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:22:24 -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 WAA15145; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 22:22:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ycgv-0005NU-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:22:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ycgu-0005NR-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:22:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ycgb-0006Gm-8M; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:22:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YcgG-0006GW-5n for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:21:40 -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 WAA15142 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 22:21:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YcgC-0005N9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:21:36 -0400 Received: from bay8-f27.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.27] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YcgB-0005My-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:21:35 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 19:21:04 -0700 Received: from 62.252.196.37 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 02:21:03 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.196.37] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jul 2003 02:21:04.0319 (UTC) FILETIME=[15B794F0:01C3429C] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id WAA15143 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 05 Jul 2003 02:21:03 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thankyou for your comments. My comments are in the body of the message=20 below. This post refers to the 'GIEIS' system currently at version 0.003= . =20 An update was carried out on the next 4th July 2003. Datails of the 'CAA= '=20 have be released as well as details regarding the 'CICFS' filtration syst= em.=20 'GIEIS' has an extensive list of systems to be added and they will appe= ar=20 as soon as the documentation can be written. The 'GIEIS' system can be viewed here at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. >Message: 14 >Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:08:57 -0400 >To: asrg@ietf.org >From: Yakov Shafranovich >Subject: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis > >As many group members have noticed in the last few days, Mr. McCarron ha= s >been posting a large volume of messages to the list regarding the GIEIS >system that he is developing. The following is my analysis of his propos= ed >system and how it falls within the consent framework (current draft at >http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-consent-framework.html). A= ll >quotes are from (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis/). > >--------- >ANALYSIS > >The GIEIS system seems to be a convergence of two proposals: message >tracking and centralization. Message tracking has been proposed by John >Fenley as part of the C/R protocol and other proposals (callback, etc.). >Centralization is not new but is similar to the other proposals on the l= ist >especially Walter Dnes's "Business Email" proposal. This is also similar= to >the proposal by someone else who suggested registration of all SMTP serv= ers >and perhaps issuing digital certificates to them. Mark's Response: No. 'GIEIS' is a completely new architecture and protocol design for web= =20 based communications. It is not similar to issuing digital certificates.= =20 'GIEIS' creates an additional layer in the net and a buffer for=20 communication protocols from end users. By securing this inner=20 communications layer with a centralised system based on encrypted=20 communications it eliminates any fraudulent access. > >Every message in the GIEIS system is stamped with a tracking number issu= ed >by the ISP's server (EAS). These servers are in turn authorized or >controlled by central entity. Thus two goals are accomplished: spam is >traceable and action can be easily taken against spammers by kicking the= m >off the GIEIS network. Within the consent framework this would correspon= d >to the SOURCE TRACKING COMPONENT. The RECEIVER is assumed to have his >CONSENT POLICY set to accept GIEIS messages, will check the tracking cod= e >against the central database and grant consent if the code if valid. The >centralization aspect of the proposal is what actually prevents spam - >action can be easily taken against the SENDERs by fining them or kicking >them off the system. > Mark's Response: It would also be a FAIL-CLOSED component. It removes all traffic not par= t=20 of the 'GIEIS' system. Also 'GIEIS' does a further check with the sendin= g=20 'EAS' for a unique message ID to ensure the message was sent from that=20 account. This eliminates any possibilities of fraud. The system is a bi= t=20 more complex than that, but yes, it does that as well. >There are numerous other things mentioned in the GIEIS proposal, all of >which are either irrelevant to fighting spam such as viruses, or are >implementation details. Many other spam-related approaches are lumped >together as well, many of which are irrelevant and have been taken from = the >group discussions without granting credit to their authors. An example o= f >that is Gordon's proposal on requiring ASCII only email. Mark's Response: There cannot be credits to something I haven't read. These are simple=20 enough concepts that would draw similar conclusions. Its not rocket=20 science. > >SUGGESTIONS TO MR. MCCARON > >1. Take all the BS out of your proposal and separate the main idea from = the >implementation details. Mark's Response: Please detail the 'BS'. >2. Stop thinking that your system will take over the Net - any system >implemented will need to accommodate multiple implementation details. Yo= u >will be better off on proposing a system like Truste. Mark's Response: 'GIEIS' would be the center of the net for completely accurate informatio= n=20 of various kinds. A commercial body could never secure the Internet, it m= ust=20 be a public body. No one needs another cert. authority what they need is= a=20 corner-stone behind the Internet that can be trusted. American business = is=20 losing $10 Billion a year to spam if we used even =A32 Billion on wages a= lone=20 we could have a staff of over 130,000 people at =A315,000 per year dedica= ted=20 to the fight against internet fraud. >3. CREATE A SEPARATE mailing list or discussion area for your proposal >where you can work out the kinks like the SPF proposal's author did. The= n >present us with a draft. Mark's Response: Here will do just fine. 'GIEIS' has no 'kinks' to work out. Its a compl= ete=20 working system. The overview is being drafted in public from compiled no= tes=20 on the system. Special focus has been given on areas of concern and thus= =20 developed at a faster rate. The GSMTP protocol is now under development. >4. Participate in defining the consent framework. Mark's Response: The consent framework will consist of white and black lists. There will = be=20 no greylisting. A complete opt-out will be allowed by 'GIEIS'. >5. Give credit where its due, when you use someone's idea - give credit. Mark's Response: Credit will be given where credit is due, however, the 'GIEIS' architectu= re=20 is unique. Mark McCarron. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis _________________________________________________________________ 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 Fri Jul 4 22:23:29 2003 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 WAA15182 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 22:23:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ycha-0006OG-KS for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:23:02 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h652N2Q2024558 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 22:23:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ycha-0006O1-HD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:23:02 -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 WAA15174; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 22:22:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YchX-0005Nx-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:22:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YchW-0005Nu-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:22:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YchY-0006L3-Oi; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:23:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ych6-0006K6-26 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:22:32 -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 WAA15150 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 22:22:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ych2-0005Ne-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:22:28 -0400 Received: from bay8-f81.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.81] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ych2-0005NI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:22:28 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 19:21:54 -0700 Received: from 62.252.196.37 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 02:21:54 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.196.37] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jul 2003 02:21:54.0946 (UTC) FILETIME=[33E4A620:01C3429C] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 05 Jul 2003 02:21:54 +0000 Thankyou for your comments. My comments are in the body of the message below. This post refers to the 'GIEIS' system currently at version 0.003. An update was carried out on the next 4th July 2003. Datails of the 'CAA' have be released as well as details regarding the 'CICFS' filtration system. 'GIEIS' has an extensive list of systems to be added and they will appear as soon as the documentation can be written. The 'GIEIS' system can be viewed here at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. >Message: 29 >Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:02:47 -0400 >To: "Mark McCarron" , asrg@ietf.org >From: Yakov Shafranovich >Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS > >At 08:48 PM 7/4/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: > >... > > > >>-- __--__-- > >> > >>Message: 13 > >>Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:32:27 -0400 > >>To: "Mark McCarron" , asrg@ietf.org > >>From: Yakov Shafranovich > >>Subject: 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS (was Re: [Asrg] Re: > >> 'GIEIS' - The Fourth Response (Esa Laitinen)) > >> > >>Mr. McCarron, > >> > >>Case in point: > >> > >>On July 1st EU countries started charging VAT taxes on most digital > >>transactions performed by non-EU companies to EU consumers. EU laws seem >to > >>apply here to companies outside the jurisdiction of the EU. > > > > > >Mark's Response: > > > >This is really import duty, a taxsation on goods imported into a > >country/region. This has two main puposes, generate revenue and to > >stabilize economies from the impact of cheap imports. This is a > >completely different legal area than a port scan. > >I will spell it out: EU LAWS SEEM TO APPLY HERE TO COMPANIES OUTSIDE THE >JURISDICTION OF THE EU. That was the point I was trying to make. Mark's Response: You spell things out when you type anyway, so a bit redundant. Let me make this point clear, the tax is applied to companies within the EU boundries when importing. Nothing to do with anything outside its jurisdiction. Mark McCarron. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis _________________________________________________________________ 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 Fri Jul 4 22:47:33 2003 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 WAA15528 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 22:47:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yd4s-00081e-IF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:47:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h652l6fN030847 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 22:47:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yd4s-00081S-E3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:47:06 -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 WAA15517; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 22:47:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yd4p-0005ZO-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:47:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yd4o-0005ZL-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:47:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yd4n-0007za-FU; Fri, 04 Jul 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 19Yd3q-0007zD-3Y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:46:02 -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 WAA15509 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 22:45:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yd3m-0005Yw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:45:58 -0400 Received: from law12-f102.law12.hotmail.com ([64.4.19.102] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yd3m-0005Yh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:45:58 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 19:45:28 -0700 Received: from 12.254.138.252 by lw12fd.law12.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 02:45:27 GMT X-Originating-IP: [12.254.138.252] X-Originating-Email: [pontifier@hotmail.com] From: "John Fenley" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent systems Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jul 2003 02:45:28.0201 (UTC) FILETIME=[7E423F90:01C3429F] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id WAA15510 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 04 Jul 2003 20:45:27 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Perhaps with all this talk of consent it is time for me to call attention= =20 back to Choicelist. Choicelist was not a message tracking system, it was a consent/trust syst= em. It was only designed to be useful for commercial email as a filter by=20 passing system. Over the last week or so, I have discovered how to incorporate a trust=20 system for personal mailers into the existing framework. I think it was Walt Dnes that proposed separate systems for personal and=20 commercial email. As I believe Choicelist was already a good system for handling commercial= =20 consent, I tried to figure out how to incorporate Personal consent into t= he=20 system. Here is a rough outline of the system I came up with: Choicelist Personal Ids can be requested. Choicelist Personal Ids give all the options of a Commercial Choicelist=20 account (Multiple addresses, authentication options, Etc). These Ids allow the user to bypass Spam filters when they contact anybody= =20 using Choicelist to block mail. The Choicelist MUA would have a button to report abuse of a personal=20 address. These reports would be confirmed and reviewed in real time, and offending= =20 Ids terminated. The response cycle for complaint to listing will be as short as possible=20 (hopefully on the order of seconds). The reason this reporting will be sufficient to stop abuse of personal=20 addresses lies in the way these Ids will be distributed. When personal Ids are requested, only an address is required. A password = is=20 sent to that address. Each address can be used to request a new Choicelis= t=20 personal Id every 3 months. This address is used only for the transmissio= n=20 of a single Choicelist Id. Anonymity can be preserved because Ids are=20 transferable, and an Id can be decoupled from the address information. Other routes to Personal Ids can be used as well, though each method shou= ld=20 have drawbacks that outweigh an Ids usefulness for spamming because of th= e=20 limited amount of spam that can be sent before an Id is terminated. It wi= ll=20 not be economical to purchase a $5 id to get maybe 20 seconds of spamming= ,=20 but a person could use a single Id indefinitely. I believe this to be an effective way to eliminate abuse of Choicelist=20 Personal Ids, and Choicelist already prevents abuse of Commercial Ids. I=20 therefore see Choicelist as a complete consent system with few (if any) w= ays=20 to abuse it while allowing contact with strangers without any uneeded=20 barriers. Choicelist requires no changes to mail sending systems, and can protect=20 mailers from claims of abuse. Choicelist also provides benefits at low adoption rates, and so should be= =20 implementable. Choicelist is also expandable to any messaging protocol (SMS, IM, Etc.)wi= th=20 little or no change to the consent structures. I could go on, but I will not. This is as close to the =93Magic Bullet=94= as I=20 think is necessary to stop spam permanently. John Fenley www.choicelist.com _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. =20 http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/featuredemail _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 22:52:31 2003 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 WAA15612 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 22:52:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yd9g-0008VG-ME for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:52:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h652q4Xr032680 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 22:52:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yd9g-0008Uo-C2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 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 WAA15603; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 22:52:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yd9c-0005cW-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:52:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yd9c-0005cT-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:52:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yd9d-0008Op-IC; Fri, 04 Jul 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 19Yd9S-0008OY-6N for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:51:50 -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 WAA15600 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 22:51:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yd9O-0005cM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:51:46 -0400 Received: from law12-f78.law12.hotmail.com ([64.4.19.78] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yd9O-0005c9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:51:46 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 19:51:15 -0700 Received: from 12.254.138.252 by lw12fd.law12.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 02:51:15 GMT X-Originating-IP: [12.254.138.252] X-Originating-Email: [pontifier@hotmail.com] From: "John Fenley" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Final Response? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jul 2003 02:51:15.0679 (UTC) FILETIME=[4D5F2EF0:01C342A0] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id WAA15601 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 04 Jul 2003 20:51:15 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have reviewed GIEIS and here is what I make of it. 1. You are asking senders to volunteer or even pay to cripple their abili= ty=20 to send email. 2. Your authentication seems to need to verify both the sending, and the=20 receiving process. 3. Your rate limiting on domestic accounts does not seem to be very=20 effective. 4. You are trying to track every email sent anywhere from a central point. 5. Because your system cannot handle any email that did not originate wit= hin=20 the system, there is no advantage to early adopters. Your system will onl= y=20 be effective at high rates of adoption=85 on the order of 80%, and people= will=20 use what is effective. There are many systems that can prevent spam if everyone does what you te= ll=20 them=85 telling people not to send spam is and example of such a system, = and=20 it seems to have about the same chance of widespread adoption. John Fenley _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* =20 http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/junkmail _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 4 23:16:36 2003 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 XAA16082 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 23:16:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YdWy-0001M8-Mf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 23:16:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h653G8KW005211 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 23:16:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YdWy-0001Ly-HZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 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 XAA16046; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 23:16:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YdWw-0005oQ-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 23:16:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YdWw-0005oM-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 23:16:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YdWs-0001Jl-Q6; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 23:16:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YdWH-0001JG-Nh for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 23:15:25 -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 XAA16022 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 23:15:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YdWF-0005o7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 23:15:23 -0400 Received: from bay8-f122.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.122] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YdWF-0005nh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 23:15:23 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 20:14:53 -0700 Received: from 62.252.196.29 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 03:14:53 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.196.29] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: sfs@tc.umn.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fifth Response Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jul 2003 03:14:53.0591 (UTC) FILETIME=[9A836270:01C342A3] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 05 Jul 2003 03:14:53 +0000 Thankyou for your comments. My comments are in the body of the message below. This post refers to the 'GIEIS' system currently at version 0.003. An update was carried out on the next 4th July 2003. Datails of the 'CAA' have be released as well as details regarding the 'CICFS' filtration system. 'GIEIS' has an extensive list of systems to be added and they will appear as soon as the documentation can be written. The 'GIEIS' system can be viewed here at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. >From: Steven F Siirila >To: Mark McCarron >CC: asrg@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fifth Response >Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 19:14:47 -0500 > >On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 08:45:47PM +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: > > >> > > > >> >So would simply requiring reverse DNS as well as a record indicating > > >> >whether > > >> >or not an IP address has been designated as an MTA. This would make > > >all of > > >> >the open proxies, hacked desktops, and dynamic IP ranges unable to >send > > >> >mail > > >> >directly to a site's MX server, forcing them to use an ISP's SMTP > > >gateway. > > >> >What you would have left is legitimate MTAs (some of which may be >open > > >> >relays). > > >> >This is essentially where we are headed at our site by putting these > > >sorts > > >> >of > > >> >things into place gradually. > > >> >-- > > >> > > >> > > >> Marl's Response: > > >> > > >> I am afraid that would not work. Spammers would just use lists of > > >> resolvable domain names. Also, some form of centralisation would be > > >> required to maintain the list you describe. Another problem would >arise > > >> from sending authorisation requests cleartext over the Internet, >these > > >> could be intercepted and responded to allowing spammers access. This >is > > >> exactly what 'GIEIS' architecture eliminates completely. > > > > > >The centralization you refer to is easily accomplished via DNS records. > > >"Authorization" is accomplished via simple DNS lookups much the same as > > >we currently use DNSbl lists already today. > > >-- > > > > > > Mark's Response: > > > > I'm afraid that is not a secure method. Firstly, I can alter the haeder >of > > email messages to reflect any domain. You could quite happily look me >up > > in all the DNS records you liked and I would be authorised every time. > > Also, communications between servers is an insecure element in this > > structure. This can be intercepted an modified at run-time, thus >allowing > > access. Only 'GIEIS' secures against these methods, spoofing is >impossible. > >You apparently have no clue about what I've been talking about, instead >choosing to promote your product. Of course headers are forgeable. >Never once did I talk about headers. I believe others on this list know >exactly what I'm talking about, so there is no point to continuing this >thread any further. Mark's Response: I know that it can be bypassed without to much effort. :) Mark McCarron http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis _________________________________________________________________ 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 Jul 5 00:03:43 2003 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 AAA17018 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 00:03:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YeGZ-00048V-Qj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 00:03:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6543Fw6015893 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 00:03:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YeGZ-00048G-MA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 00:03:15 -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 AAA16982; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 00:03:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YeGX-00063t-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 00:03:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YeGW-00063q-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 00:03:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YeGK-00046N-Ng; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 00:03:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YeG7-000469-0M for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 00:02:47 -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 AAA16977 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 00:02:43 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YeG4-00063d-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 00:02:44 -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 19YeG3-00063a-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 00:02:43 -0400 Received: (cpmta 23028 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2003 21:02:41 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.64) with SMTP; 4 Jul 2003 21:02:41 -0700 X-Sent: 5 Jul 2003 04:02:41 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Fri, 4 Jul 2003 23:02:08 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 23:31:05 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Systems and permission list 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, 04 Jul 2003 23:31:05 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>What *most* of us do (sooner or later) is to simply buy a domain name which is >PERMANENTLY yours (well, as long as you pay the renewal fees...) and > That is definitely not what "most" internet users do. I think that's what a large number of them will do eventually. Many of those of us which have been around long enough to experience the problem (maybe several times) have already done so. A lot of them are (relative) newbies... compared to us here at least... and have yet to discover the hassles of changing their E-mail address. (I used to think it only was a penalty for US changing our ISP, but the majority of my changes have been ISP acquisitions, which obviously I had little or no control over). > And we are trying to define a system for internet users, not "us". In any case, the change-of-address problem happens whether we have anti-spam systems or not. >>For those people who aren't clever enough to have their own permanent domain >name, then they have to notify their correspondents. But that's no different >for the sender than if they DIDN'T have a permissions list or other anti-spam >technology in place. > It is different in the context we were discussing. What we were discussing was how to notify clients when it was necessary to reestablish consent to communicate. In my system, one doesn't NEED to notify senders (other than to get them to change the E-mail address they send to, I suppose). > I understand that this doesn't apply to the system you proposed, Right. One of the advantages of my system... it's pretty much one-ended, and (especially useful for big mailing lists etc) the senders don't have to do *anything* different than they otherwise would. > ...since it assumes that consent is limited to html vs. non-html. No, it could be MUCH finer-grained than that, if desired. (basic HTML but no scripting, no tables, no frames, no images, no ActiveX, etc etc.) I also proposed that (specifically) attachments (executable vs 'safe' etc) and base64 encoding also be "special" privileges available only to trusted senders. > However it does apply to the other consent systems that we were discussing. Well, some of them maybe. >>Yeah, I just got an E-mail earlier today from one of my neighbors with his >E-mail address change (also from attbi.com to comcast.net) with no less than >almost 17k of To: addresses...! (Nothing too embarassing to him though, I >looked...! ;-) ) Some people really are clueless. > Actually in those cases I think you need to look to the software vendor. As far as I've been told, there is no way to export and then import an address book reliably from some major email packages. If they could put it in the To: field, they ought to be able to equally well put it into the Bcc: field. > So those people who've figured out that they can do it by mailing to everyone are actually being rather clever. Except that everyone they write to gets a complete copy of the sender's full address book....!! >>> 2. If a consent token does degenerate to a password, then two >problems occur. One, it can be sold along with your email address, >just as email addresses are sold now. >>That would only be true if the token were not specific to a given sender. > Which is precisely what I said. Tracing my conversation back you'll see that I came to the conclusion that it would because there needs to be a way to give consent over the phone and to web sites. Then that's a good reason to NOT give them a consent token at all. (Another is the need to someday maybe revoke or modify consent...) If you need to change the consent, you obviously need to do that on a per-sender basis, which means you have to look up their sender address anyhow (or else have each sender have a unique token... same difference!) so if you've got to look up the e-mail address anyhow... to ensure that the token hasn't been revoked... the token itself is TOTALLY redundant! > Since web sites and web-related databases aren't going to suddenly sprout a consent key, there needs to be a way to embed one in the email address. Or, more typically, to allow them to send you a 'basic form' E-mail which is non-bulky, hard-to-cloak, and universal. That means plain ASCII, no HTML, no attachments, no encoding. > Managing a system like that manually is not feasible. It is *100%* feasible if the sender E-mail address (perhaps combined with the recipient address) *is* the consent key. It's even moreso when the recipient has their own domain with a "catch-all" account where "any" E-mail address within their personal domain will come to them. That allows them to get "all" the E-mails, and use the complete E-mail address (which can be given uniquely to each sender) as the consent key. > (I have enough trouble managing my address+theirdomain@somewhere.com system, given company name changes and problems with sites that don't like + in an email address.) So who needs a "+"? Use a dash, or an underscore, or most anything for that matter. For example, I could give someone gep2-ebay@terabites.com, and all that E-mail will come in clearly marked with the indication of who I originally gave that E-mail address to. For that matter, I could give them gep2ebay@terabites.com and it would be every bit as good. If you wanted to make it less obvious it could be gep21750 or something where the appended 4-digit number had a checksum or something embedded in it, and where the number's assignment wouldn't be so obvious. > Therefore I concluded that a consent token would degenerate to a password. I don't think that solves the problem. > I'd be very happy if someone could show me a reasonable way whereby that wouldn't be the case. Sure. Just have catch-all accounts and private domains. It's just NOT that hard, and there's really no reason why (with domains costing as little as about $7 a year, I think that's maybe the lowest I've heard so far at least) why they can't be nearly universal. >>Oh, give me a break... it could be as simple as some kind of a hash >function or >checksum or something. Compared to many of the other things we discuss here >routinely, that's child's play. > Not on a business card, over the phone or without a piece of software that will generate it for you and notify both the web browser and the email software. (Okay, I'll grant you cut and paste in the last case :-). On a business card is an interesting case, although when you post to a mailing list (like this one) is a similar one... where you want to have a generic address that (by design) multiple "untrusted" senders may reach you. But that's not a big problem, you just post your "for general contacts" address and then update your address (or your permissions table) when you have an established relationship. But still, it simply makes more sense to do it the way I proposed... to have your E-mail address, and establish the permissions list associated based on the SENDER (since that's what matters, anyhow) rather than trying to key it off some kind of token or special addressee E-mail or something (again, having a special set of permissions associated with (only!) a given destination addressee still creates problems when you wish to CHANGE or revoke entirely the permissions you grant to a single sender... and you might not want to make them aware of that, as you might by telling them to suddenly start sending to a different E-mail address. >>> ....and a knowledge of what addresses will be used to contact >you. (Again, I think people working on this should focus first on a >URL scheme for whitelisting. E.g. >whitelist:some-piece-of-information-identifying-senders.) >> Why are some people SO determined to make this Web-based? While that is a > I have no interest in making it web based. So what's the point of making it a URL? > I want to solve a very real problem. I assert that the majority of mailing lists people sign up for are signed up for by entering their email address on a web page. I *strongly* disagree. For example, most Yahoogroups mailing lists (and they are surely the largest single operator of mailing lists) are subscribed by E-mailing to: groupname-subscribe@yahoogroups.com Even in the Unix world, most majordomo mailing lists take the majority of their commands by E-mail rather than a Web-based interface. > Therefore a consent system needs to take that into account. That's all. The system itself should *not* be web based. OK, on that part we agree. A Web *option* is fine, but it shouldn't REQUIRE a Web interface. >> at ANY time. To me, that sounds like their E-mail address IS their token, and >the MUA/MTA at your client end/ISP/destination domain simply looks up the >current permissions associated with THAT sender. Simple, direct, efficient. > Except that the same vendor may use multiple different email addresses. In which case, you might want to grant different permissions to different people within the company. For example, to me@mydomain.com from sales@company.com allow HTML safe from softwaredevelopment@company.com allow HTML allow attachments Alternatively, there's no a priori reason why one couldn't implement an extension like: to me@mydomain.com from *@company.com allow HTML allow attachments In *general*, I don't much like regular expressions (which I consider a *truly* braindead form of pattern matching) although in a specialized case like this, the frustrations of regex might not be too annoying, and it might not be too difficult to deal with from a programming standpoint. > In fact more and more of the vendor email I see not only is using per-recipient from addresses, they are changing every single time they send a message. First, I doubt they change *very much*. Second, nothing PREVENTS you from opening your permissions window wide (and being consequently widely vulnerable). The best policy, though, is to keep your windows of vulnerability as narrow as you possibly can. Third, if what you say is true, then it is because they haven't seen a disadvantage to doing it that way. The widespread adoption of a permissions scheme based on sender address might be an enticement to put their unique stuff WHERE IT BELONGS... in the subject, or perhaps in some other header line or something, depending on their requirements. > (They appear to be encoding not only the recipient (for bounce removal) but also the id of the message they sent.) They could do that equally well (better, actually) in the subject of the message. > Obviously we could require that those systems change. But it's yet another complication to consider. Sure. (Actually, even THOSE kinds of things wouldn't need to change, under my plan, if they were willing to send their stuff in responsible, efficient, universal and compact plain ASCII text. They'd only need to change if they wanted to send stuff in a format that REQUIRED special permission on the part of the receiver to get it into the recipient's Inbox). >>I really think that content filters, coupled with HTML-based or >attachment-based >permissions/restrictions, give us most of the tools that we need to >distinguish >between the stuff we might be interested in, versus the stuff we're not. > I'm actually tending in that direction myself I believe that the more thought you give it, the more you'll finally end up agreeing that it is probably the idea that gives us the most, for the least cost, and with the greatest ability to actually get busy and implement it without requiring a nearly unachievable worldwide consensus. What's more, it has the antivirus/antiworm/antitrojan advantages, AND it's easy enough to explain to a user that even fairly clueless types should rapidly develop an intuitive kind of feel for how to use it. > (although I think the HTML side of things is a red-herring, but we'll agree to disagree there). One could offer it in an advanced, finer-grained form, as we've discussed... where one could have "classes" of HTML tags based on increasing levels of annoyance/cloaking/risk. Clearly things like Javascript, ActiveX and the like are among the more dangerous stuff. Things like embedded images or links to images at URLs (often used for text-as-image to confound content scanners) are another thing that ought to be viewed with some suspicion. One could probably define a subset of HTML (the kind of stuff that typical AOL users or Hotmail users are most likely to have used, probably without their real awareness) which might be allowed in a relatively "HTML but vanilla stuff" category. But it IS important that scripting or the types of HTML tags which spammers use (invalid tags, lots of comments embedded within words, hex or decimal character specifiers, links with other forms of obscured URLs, etc) be sufficiently elevated in terms of permission requirement that they still be usable as a clear indicator of "spam!" Any of the numerous familiar tricks that spammers use to cloak or obscure their message (and these are things that are virtually never found in legitimate HTML-burdened E-mails) are pretty clear indicators that a message is from spammer scum. And I *do* think that as a matter of policy, anything we can do BY DESIGN to discourage the GRATUITOUS use of HTML-burdened E-mail and MIME alternative attachments (at a consequent about quadrupling of the size of typical E-mail messages) is a good way to cut E-mail costs overall. > I also don't find that "content" filtering is that necessary, I think it is a good final "polishing" filter to remove a great percentage of the spam E-mails that would otherwise slide through. Especially once the HTML cloaking/obscuring tricks are denied to the spammers, I think that the content filters will help to reliably t-can a *large* percentage of what's left. > but certainly filtering of one sort or another can be very effective for an end user. Absolutely, especially once they figure out good strategies for dealing with the spam based on the content filtering program they choose to use. > I look at the C/R systems primarily as a way of dealing with gray lists, and the consent systems as ways to deal with subscriptions. I don't think it will work to have much of anything required on the part of the sender (some of which will be "free" Yahoogroups-type community mailing lists which simply won't screw with it). I think it makes more sense to hold the questionable stuff and then send a periodic list of "pending decision" stuff to the recipient, to allow and help them to fine-tune their permissions list. > Otherwise I don't feel that a great deal of change is required to fix the system. I *certainly* don't like the idea of having "separate but equal" E-mail systems for "business" vs "personal" use, etc etc. I think one of the MOST IMPORTANT aspects of the Internet is precisely that it gives comparable capabilities to individuals, small non-profit groups, community activists and tiny companies that the biggest corporations enjoy... I don't want to see that lost and have the Internet be a game where only the "big guys" can play. > Assuming that we can protect enough user's mailboxes, I hope (although I could be wrong) that we'll cut off enough of the financial incentive such that the volume problems will drop for ISPs. (I've got a lot riding on that bet, because somewhere.com is riding just behind striker on the volume curve). I think that we can make a BIG dent in spam profitability (and volume) with a relatively simple strategy (my permissions list) and I think that moreover we can do that fairly quickly. 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 Jul 5 01:49:48 2003 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 BAA18333 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 01:49:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YfvF-00028y-5N for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 01:49:21 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h655nLkn008234 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 01:49:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YfvF-00028j-22 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 01:49:21 -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 BAA18306; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 01:49:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YfvB-0006Ra-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 01:49:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YfvB-0006RX-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 01:49:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yfuu-0001vq-VD; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 01:49:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yfuf-0001rl-Se for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 01:48:45 -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 BAA18288 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 01:48:42 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yfuc-0006R0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 01:48:42 -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 19Yfub-0006Qw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 01:48:41 -0400 Received: (cpmta 4437 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2003 22:48:41 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.66) with SMTP; 4 Jul 2003 22:48:41 -0700 X-Sent: 5 Jul 2003 05:48:41 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Sat, 5 Jul 2003 00:47:21 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 01:16:19 -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] Disabling small (eg home) business and nonprofits Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 05 Jul 2003 01:16:19 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > The simplist way to achieve this is to raise the 'bar' for online expenditure. Any company that would have a solid outlook on Internet based trading would be able to afford in excess of =A35,000 a year to pay on proper digital registration systems and point-to-point contacts with businesses and clients. If a company would find this expenditure difficult to reach then it is a clear indicator that they are not ready for an Internet Solution. > It would assist small to medium size firms to seriously evalutate any proposed web initiatives and detract from failed enterprise ventures. With all due respect, this is bullshit. There are **loads** of VERY small businesses which presently use the Net as a low-cost way of conducting VERY small amounts of specialized business. These can be nonprofits, or could be negligible-profit. As an example of the former, there's a local religious volunteer organization which gets together volunteers to "glean" in farmers fields following the completion of the farmer's normal harvest cycle. After his harvest is done, they go back into the fields with teams of volunteers and try to recover the still-usable crops which the farmer judges "not worth recovering" for donation to food banks, needy folks, and such. The farmer gets a tax deduction for the recovered additional crops (which otherwise would just rot in the fields), and the organization's people can and do recover TONS of food this way, but there's basically NO money in it (and certainly no profits). It's basically a near-zero-budget, all-volunteer operation. Think they'd have thousands of dollars to pay for "digital registration systems" and other stuff? No way. As just one personal example of the latter, there are political activists (myself included) which sell protest stickers and such to other activists nationwide. These sales are more a matter of personal principle and conviction than they are based on any profit motive, and the total annual revenues from these sales are probably less than a thousand dollars and any profits are negligible if any. So there are a lot of miniscule operations which simply don't generate anywhere NEAR enough revenue to justify the kind of expenses that you seem to think are required if the fledgling outfit is "ready for an Internet Solution". The fact is that today's Internet makes it possible to conduct a lot of legitimate (tiny!) business and charitable operations on a shoestring, and this enabling technology increases the diversity of goods and services that can be made available to the public, which in turn enriches peoples lives in addition to offering them more opportunities for volunteerism and public service (as in the local gleaning operation). I think that anything we might do through simple ignorance which cut off these opportunities would be tragic. 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 Jul 5 09:17:39 2003 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 JAA07021 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 09:17:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ymue-0007IO-15 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 09:17:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h65DHCOk028038 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 09:17:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ymud-0007I9-SV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 09:17:11 -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 JAA06998; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 09:17:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ymuc-0000xN-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 09:17:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ymub-0000xK-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 09:17:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YmuS-0007F5-Nw; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 09:17:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ymti-0007Er-JW for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 09:16:14 -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 JAA06985 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 09:16:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ymth-0000xG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 09:16:13 -0400 Received: from bay8-f106.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.106] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ymtg-0000x8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 09:16:12 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 06:15:41 -0700 Received: from 62.253.12.145 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 13:15:41 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.253.12.145] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - Verson 0.004 Released Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jul 2003 13:15:41.0825 (UTC) FILETIME=[88EF5F10:01C342F7] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id JAA06986 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 05 Jul 2003 13:15:41 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The 'GIEIS' system has been updated to include clear diagrams of the=20 architecture. Some alterations and additions have been made also. Version 0.004 - Updated 5th July 2003 GIEIS - Global ISP Email Identity System - The Ultimate Anti-Spam System a.k.a. - The Digital Reaper =A9 Including intellectual copyright, Mark McCarron 2003, All rights rese= rved. _________________________________________________________________ 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 Sat Jul 5 09:20:33 2003 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 JAA07083 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 09:20:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YmxQ-0007UW-Cr for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 09:20:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h65DK4Tq028790 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 09:20:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YmxQ-0007UH-25 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 09:20:04 -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 JAA07068; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 09:20:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YmxO-0000yo-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 09:20:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YmxN-0000yl-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 09:20:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YmxO-0007O9-43; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 09:20:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ymwb-0007NS-PC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 09:19:13 -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 JAA07056 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 09:19:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ymwa-0000yR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 09:19:12 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YmwZ-0000yO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 09:19:11 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 09:17:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 09:05:44 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'C. Wegrzyn'" , "'Asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 0 - General - Summary to date? 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: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 09:05:37 -0400 Yes, there are a number of topics being discussed currently. To help keep track of the conversations on the mailing list, we proposed simple posting guidelines that involve placing the work item number and appropriate description in the subject of each post. These brief guidelines are on the website and are as follows: '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.' We had moved away from enforcing this. We have now moved back towards this. As you see over the last week a decent percentage of the postings have contained this information. All: please take this as a reminder to use this format for all postings to the group. If anyone would like to suggest other items or categories for the work items list, please do so. There are other 'rules of engagement' that we are putting together to help solve some of the current inefficiencies of the mailing list. These proposed mailing list guidelines should be posted to the group in the coming week. On the ASRG's website ( http://www.irtf.org/asrg ), you will find a couple of things useful in keeping track of the overall work of the group: 1. List of ASRG work items: http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg-work-items.txt 2. Summary of mailing list discussions as related to the work items: http://www.elan.net/~william/asrg/index.htm Beyond this, we are working to keep the ASRG website and the summary of mailing list discussions updated more often. We will also begin to create regular summaries of the mailing list discussions. A group member has agreed to contribute to these roles. We are working out the details such as how often this will occur, etc. > -----Original Message----- > From: C. Wegrzyn [mailto:wegrzyn@garbagedump.com] > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 1:16 PM > Cc: Asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] Summary to date? > > > I've noticed recently that we have 3 or 4 separate > conversations going > on in parallel. I am finding it very difficult to keep things > straight. > I was wondering if it would be possible to get a summary of exactly > where we are in ASRG. > > Regards, > Chuck Wegrzyn > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sat Jul 5 10:44:39 2003 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 KAA09547 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 10:44:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YoGr-0002HH-4E for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 10:44:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h65EiDV8008749 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 10:44:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YoGr-0002H2-0i for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 10:44:13 -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 KAA09536; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 10:44:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YoGo-0001h4-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 10:44:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YoGo-0001h1-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 10:44:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YoGf-0002F2-Gs; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 10:44:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YoGB-0002Ec-Sz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 10:43:31 -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 KAA09530 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 10:43:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YoG9-0001g3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 10:43:29 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-03.southeast.rr.com ([24.93.67.84]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YoG8-0001g0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 10:43:28 -0400 Received: from DXHIRX1 (rdu162-230-108.nc.rr.com [24.162.230.108]) by ms-smtp-03.southeast.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with SMTP id h65Efg93002639 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 10:41:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <007f01c34303$ca005c50$0201a8c0@DXHIRX1> From: "Ken Hirsch" To: "ASRG list" References: <20030704181239.D10667@m433> Subject: Re: [Asrg] The Solution To Spam - The First Response 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: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 10:43:21 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Walter Dnes" > > If you could find out all SMTP servers with a good reputation, you > > could arrange to verify them by looking up, say, > > 63.10.45.12.presumedinnocent.org. > > This seems to be a mirror image of current DNSbls which list bad > actors. I think the current approach is better. There are, hopefully, > fewer "bad guys" than "good guys" so the logistics of listing the "bad > guys" are easier. > > > But it is critical that this NOT apply to new/unknown servers and > > it would be subject to easy revocation. > > Everybody starts off presumed innocent until listed in a DNSbl, which > takes care of your worry about new/unknown servers. That's rather the opposite of what I meant. It is necessary that new and unknown servers be presumed guilty. That's one of the main problems with blacklists. There are thousands of new open relays and open proxies created each week. A virus could create hundreds of thousands in a day. Blacklists can't cope with that. I am only proposing this reputation-based whitelist as an aid to transition. Once mail is no longer accepted from unknown servers, there would be no way to build a good reputation. Searching on "reputation" and various mail-related terms, I discovered http://www.mxes.org/. Tracking of reputation could be very helpful to heuristic systems like SpamAssassin, but the n-squared nature of mail connections make it unlikely that it would work very well. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jul 5 18:27:57 2003 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 SAA18839 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 18:27:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YvVD-0002jP-Na for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 18:27:32 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h65MRVbc010495 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 18:27:31 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YvVD-0002jC-KI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 18:27:31 -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 SAA18810; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 18:27:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YvVA-00062W-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 18:27:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YvV9-00062T-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 18:27:27 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YvUi-0002go-LU; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 18:27:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YvUK-0002gR-7u for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 18:26:36 -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 SAA18773 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 18:26:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YvUH-00061q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 18:26:33 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YvUG-00061n-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 18:26:32 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 18:25:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 18:13:33 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Dave Crocker'" , Paul Judge Cc: "'Barry Shein'" , "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. - Spam Characterization - Possible Measurements (wa s : RE: 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: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 18:13:28 -0400 > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com] > Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 12:09 PM > To: Paul Judge > Cc: 'Barry Shein'; 'Yakov Shafranovich'; 'asrg@ietf.org' > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. - Spam Characterization - Possible > Measurements (was : RE: Two ways to look at spam) > > > Paul, > > Permit me to ask a difficult question: > > > PJ> Here is a list of characteristics that I'd put together. > > Why? There are many reasons why one would want to understand characteristics of a problem as a fundamental step towards attempting to solve that problem. > Essentially all of the characteristics that you have listed > are no better than second-order. That is, they are not key > characteristics to spam, but rather they are characteristics > of some spam today. Spam measurement and characterization should not be confused with the inventory of problems list. Spam characterization seeks to understand the current state of the problem (read symptoms). The inventory of problems list seeks to look at the reason for the problem or the core attributes that allow the actions taken by spammers that result in these symptoms. > Let's say that a sender of spam changed their operation, so > that they committed none of the sins, and showed none of the > characteristics, that you listed. Could they still send spam? > I believe the answer is yes. Perhaps some incorrect assumptions were made about why these characteristics are important. Your question above also assumes that spammers can change their operation to avoid exhibiting ALL of these characteristics. I believe that to not be accurate. Secondly, your question asks if they could still SEND spam. In some cases, our goal is not to stop them from sending spam, but just to be able to DETECT the spam. Now, the question should be 'Will we be able to detect and/or prevent the spam?' The two questions underneath all of this are: 1) Is this characteristic an effective indicator of spam? And 2) Can they change the characteristic? There are four possible situations, but three that matter: Question 1: Yes. Question 2: Yes. Means: Valid indicator now, but not necessarily in the future. A number of these characteristics provide a good indication of spam messages. Even though spammers are able to change some of these characteristics: some of it changes and some of it does not. Either way, currently they provide effective means of spam detection. Also, realizing that these characteristics evolve, the good spam detection systems have also. See any heuristics-based spam detection system for reference. Problems arise when a system creator mistakenly assumes that one of these characteristics can not change. Question 1: Yes. Question 2: No. Means: Valid indicator now and moving forward: This provide a good point of focus for new proposals. One quick example of such a characteristic is the call-for-action. Most (not all) spam messages include and must continue to include some call-for-action. There are of course exceptions such as spam sent for the sake of sending and the possibility of brand awareness spam that does not directly attempt to sell anything. Question 1: No. Means: Not a valid indicator now: Some of these characteristics do not provide a strong enough indication; therefore we should not focus on detecting or preventing those. Such a measurement study could make a strong statement about the usefulness of certain paths that are being considered. > Otherwise, all that you are doing is focusing on side-effects. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jul 5 21:12:46 2003 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 VAA21389 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 21:12:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yy4h-0007Lz-Jm for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 21:12:19 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h661CJuR028261 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 21:12:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yy4h-0007Lk-Fa for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 21:12:19 -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 VAA21385; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 21:12:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yy4e-0006jJ-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 21:12:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yy4e-0006jG-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 21:12:16 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yy4P-0007Ir-GC; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 21:12:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yy42-0007IV-V3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 21:11:38 -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 VAA21374 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 21:11:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yy40-0006j0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 21:11:36 -0400 Received: from bay8-f122.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.122] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yy3z-0006il-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 21:11:35 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 18:11:06 -0700 Received: from 213.104.228.29 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 01:11:05 GMT X-Originating-IP: [213.104.228.29] 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: 06 Jul 2003 01:11:06.0201 (UTC) FILETIME=[79DB5C90:01C3435B] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id VAA21375 Subject: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - Version 0.005 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: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 01:11:05 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Version 0.005 - Updated 6th July 2003 GIEIS - Global ISP Email Identity System - The Ultimate Anti-Spam System a.k.a. - The Digital Reaper =A9 Including intellectual copyright, Mark McCarron 2003, All rights rese= rved http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza,necropolis _________________________________________________________________ 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 Sat Jul 5 21:16:31 2003 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 VAA21439 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 21:16:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yy8L-0007cx-4G for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 21:16:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h661G5ZC029313 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 21:16:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yy8K-0007ci-LA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 21:16:04 -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 VAA21429; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 21:16:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yy8H-0006kP-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 21:16:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yy8H-0006kM-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 21:16:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yy8I-0007Wd-Dy; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 21:16:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yy7u-0007WN-Im for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 21:15:38 -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 VAA21425 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 21:15:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yy7s-0006kI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 21:15:36 -0400 Received: from bay8-f109.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.109] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yy7r-0006k8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 21:15:35 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 18:15:05 -0700 Received: from 213.104.228.29 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 01:15:05 GMT X-Originating-IP: [213.104.228.29] 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: 06 Jul 2003 01:15:05.0903 (UTC) FILETIME=[08BAFBF0:01C3435C] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id VAA21426 Subject: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - To create 2.26 Million jobs Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Jul 2003 01:15:05 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This post relates to the 'GIEIS' system Version 0.005 - Updated 6th July 2003 GIEIS - Global ISP Email Identity System - The Ultimate Anti-Spam System a.k.a. - The Digital Reaper =A9 Including intellectual copyright, Mark McCarron 2003, All rights rese= rved http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza,necropolis Details have been added to the 'GIEIS' system demonstrating the financial= =20 impact of such an institution. I can confirm the rumors, yes, 'GIEIS' ha= ve=20 up to 2.26 Million employees globally. For full financial breakdowns ple= ase=20 refer to: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. _________________________________________________________________ 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 Sat Jul 5 22:09:34 2003 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 WAA22248 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:09:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yyxg-0000cy-4K for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:09:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66298nl002406 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:09:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yyxf-0000cj-Sx for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:09:07 -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 WAA22241; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:09:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yyxc-0006zn-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:09:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yyxc-0006zk-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:09:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YyxZ-0000Zz-8h; Sat, 05 Jul 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 19YyxF-0000Yt-UW for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:08:42 -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 WAA22233 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:08:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YyxC-0006zb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:08:38 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YyxC-0006zY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:08:38 -0400 Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h6628bch011500; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 19:08:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 19:08:37 -0700 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D22D4@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Paul Judge'" , "'Dave Crocker'" Cc: "'Barry Shein'" , "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. - Spam Characterization - Possible Measurements (wa s : RE: Two ways to look at 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: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 19:08:36 -0700 I think it might be unreasonable to expect a particularly accurate measurement of spam characteristics. There are a lot of potential biases in any sample that is constructed. However I think we could hope to create a series of measurements that show long term trends in various characteristics. So while a measurement of the proportion of spam that is 419 scams is going to be heavily biased by the means used for measurement a series of measurements taken in the same way could provide highly accurate trending. I think it will be very useful to have measurements that allow the effectiveness of anti-spam measures to be judged as they are implemented. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jul 5 22:19:33 2003 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 WAA22389 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:19:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yz7L-0000ta-6K for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:19:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h662J7WG003436 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:19:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yz7L-0000tL-2b for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:19:07 -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 WAA22381; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:19:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yz7H-00072M-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:19:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yz7H-00072J-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:19:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yz7F-0000rH-G0; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:19:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yz6d-0000qr-K3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:18:23 -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 WAA22366 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:18:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yz6a-00072A-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:18:20 -0400 Received: from 000-229-858.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.136.243] helo=68.27.136.243) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yz6Y-000727-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:18:19 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030705221755.00bb5700@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Mark McCarron" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis 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: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:17:56 -0400 At 02:21 AM 7/5/2003 +0000, you wrote: >... > >>Message: 29 >>Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:02:47 -0400 >>To: "Mark McCarron" , asrg@ietf.org >>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS >> >>At 08:48 PM 7/4/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >> >... >> > >> >>-- __--__-- >> >> >> >>Message: 13 >> >>Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:32:27 -0400 >> >>To: "Mark McCarron" , asrg@ietf.org >> >>From: Yakov Shafranovich >> >>Subject: 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS (was Re: [Asrg] Re: >> >> 'GIEIS' - The Fourth Response (Esa Laitinen)) >> >> >> >>Mr. McCarron, >> >> >> >>Case in point: >> >> >> >>On July 1st EU countries started charging VAT taxes on most digital >> >>transactions performed by non-EU companies to EU consumers. EU laws >> seem to >> >>apply here to companies outside the jurisdiction of the EU. >> > >> > >> >Mark's Response: >> > >> >This is really import duty, a taxsation on goods imported into a >> >country/region. This has two main puposes, generate revenue and to >> >stabilize economies from the impact of cheap imports. This is a >> >completely different legal area than a port scan. >> >>I will spell it out: EU LAWS SEEM TO APPLY HERE TO COMPANIES OUTSIDE THE >>JURISDICTION OF THE EU. That was the point I was trying to make. > > >Mark's Response: > >You spell things out when you type anyway, so a bit redundant. Let me >make this point clear, the tax is applied to companies within the EU >boundries when importing. Nothing to do with anything outside its >jurisdiction. The VAT taxes are being applied to companies that are Internet based and are located outside the EU. Having their digital products downloaded on their territory OUTSIDE the EU where the download server is based, by people present inside the EU puts them under the EU . The EU feels that its laws apply to anyone outside the EU itself AS LONG AS they interact with EU citizens. By extension port scanning servers based in EU even thought you are outside of the EU will make you come under the laws of the EU since you are interacting with EU citizens. The same logic also underlies the EU privacy laws which apply to companies outside the EU if they interact with citizens within the EU. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jul 5 22:33:33 2003 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 WAA22538 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:33:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YzKt-0001Ft-DS for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:33:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h662X7UQ004819 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:33:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YzKt-0001FH-AF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:33:07 -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 WAA22518; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:33:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YzKq-00075B-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:33:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YzKp-000758-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:33:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YzKm-0001A0-Jo; Sat, 05 Jul 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 19YzK1-00019P-54 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:32:13 -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 WAA22503 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:32:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YzJx-00074b-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:32:09 -0400 Received: from bay8-f64.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.64] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YzJx-00074S-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:32:09 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 19:31:39 -0700 Received: from 62.252.224.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 02:31:37 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.224.5] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: research@solidmatrix.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2003 02:31:39.0335 (UTC) FILETIME=[BAA11570:01C34366] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Jul 2003 02:31:37 +0000 >From: Yakov Shafranovich >To: "Mark McCarron" >Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis >Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:16:34 -0400 > >At 02:21 AM 7/5/2003 +0000, you wrote: >>... >> >>>Message: 29 >>>Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:02:47 -0400 >>>To: "Mark McCarron" , asrg@ietf.org >>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS >>> >>>At 08:48 PM 7/4/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>> >... >>> > >>> >>-- __--__-- >>> >> >>> >>Message: 13 >>> >>Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:32:27 -0400 >>> >>To: "Mark McCarron" , asrg@ietf.org >>> >>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>> >>Subject: 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS (was Re: [Asrg] Re: >>> >> 'GIEIS' - The Fourth Response (Esa Laitinen)) >>> >> >>> >>Mr. McCarron, >>> >> >>> >>Case in point: >>> >> >>> >>On July 1st EU countries started charging VAT taxes on most digital >>> >>transactions performed by non-EU companies to EU consumers. EU laws >>>seem to >>> >>apply here to companies outside the jurisdiction of the EU. >>> > >>> > >>> >Mark's Response: >>> > >>> >This is really import duty, a taxsation on goods imported into a >>> >country/region. This has two main puposes, generate revenue and to >>> >stabilize economies from the impact of cheap imports. This is a >>> >completely different legal area than a port scan. >>> >>>I will spell it out: EU LAWS SEEM TO APPLY HERE TO COMPANIES OUTSIDE THE >>>JURISDICTION OF THE EU. That was the point I was trying to make. >> >> >>Mark's Response: >> >>You spell things out when you type anyway, so a bit redundant. Let me >>make this point clear, the tax is applied to companies within the EU >>boundries when importing. Nothing to do with anything outside its >>jurisdiction. > >The VAT taxes are being applied to companies that are Internet based and >are located outside the EU. Having their digital products downloaded on >their territory OUTSIDE the EU where the download server is based, by >people present inside the EU puts them under the EU . The EU feels that its >laws apply to anyone outside the EU itself AS LONG AS they interact with EU >citizens. By extension port scanning servers based in EU even thought you >are outside of the EU will make you come under the laws of the EU since you >are interacting with EU citizens. The same logic also underlies the EU >privacy laws which apply to companies outside the EU if they interact with >citizens within the EU. > Mark's Response: It is still import duty and deals only with those inside the EU. Laws cannot be outside any legal juristiction they represent. 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 Jul 5 22:39:29 2003 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 WAA22626 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:39:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YzQe-0001gz-6Q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:39:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h662d4di006504 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:39:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YzQe-0001gp-2I for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:39:04 -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 WAA22622; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:38:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YzQa-000772-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:39:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YzQa-00076z-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:39:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YzQb-0001dn-1a; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:39:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YzPf-0001dY-7z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:38:03 -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 WAA22612 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:37:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YzPb-00076w-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:37:59 -0400 Received: from 000-229-858.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.136.243] helo=68.27.136.243) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YzPZ-00076t-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:37:58 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030705223627.00ba5c18@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] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis 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: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:37:34 -0400 At 02:31 AM 7/6/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>To: "Mark McCarron" >>Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis >>Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:16:34 -0400 >> >>At 02:21 AM 7/5/2003 +0000, you wrote: >>>... >>> >>>>Message: 29 >>>>Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:02:47 -0400 >>>>To: "Mark McCarron" , asrg@ietf.org >>>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>>Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS >>>> >>>>At 08:48 PM 7/4/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>>> >... >>>> > >>>> >>-- __--__-- >>>> >> >>>> >>Message: 13 >>>> >>Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:32:27 -0400 >>>> >>To: "Mark McCarron" , asrg@ietf.org >>>> >>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>> >>Subject: 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS (was Re: [Asrg] Re: >>>> >> 'GIEIS' - The Fourth Response (Esa Laitinen)) >>>> >> >>>> >>Mr. McCarron, >>>> >> >>>> >>Case in point: >>>> >> >>>> >>On July 1st EU countries started charging VAT taxes on most digital >>>> >>transactions performed by non-EU companies to EU consumers. EU laws >>>> seem to >>>> >>apply here to companies outside the jurisdiction of the EU. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >Mark's Response: >>>> > >>>> >This is really import duty, a taxsation on goods imported into a >>>> >country/region. This has two main puposes, generate revenue and to >>>> >stabilize economies from the impact of cheap imports. This is a >>>> >completely different legal area than a port scan. >>>> >>>>I will spell it out: EU LAWS SEEM TO APPLY HERE TO COMPANIES OUTSIDE THE >>>>JURISDICTION OF THE EU. That was the point I was trying to make. >>> >>> >>>Mark's Response: >>> >>>You spell things out when you type anyway, so a bit redundant. Let me >>>make this point clear, the tax is applied to companies within the EU >>>boundries when importing. Nothing to do with anything outside its >>>jurisdiction. >> >>The VAT taxes are being applied to companies that are Internet based and >>are located outside the EU. Having their digital products downloaded on >>their territory OUTSIDE the EU where the download server is based, by >>people present inside the EU puts them under the EU . The EU feels that >>its laws apply to anyone outside the EU itself AS LONG AS they interact >>with EU citizens. By extension port scanning servers based in EU even >>thought you are outside of the EU will make you come under the laws of >>the EU since you are interacting with EU citizens. The same logic also >>underlies the EU privacy laws which apply to companies outside the EU if >>they interact with citizens within the EU. > >Mark's Response: > >It is still import duty and deals only with those inside the EU. Laws >cannot be outside any legal juristiction they represent. And how does the EU plan on collection VAT taxes in this case? Apparently they feel that if a company interacts with a EU citizen within the EU portion of cyberspace, that is enough to put the company into EU's legal jurisdiction. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jul 5 22:40:30 2003 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 WAA22665 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:40:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YzRd-0001oG-1F for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:40:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h662e4BP006956 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:40:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YzRc-0001o7-Nr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:40:04 -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 WAA22661; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:39:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YzRZ-00077e-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:40:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YzRY-00077b-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:40:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YzRa-0001l3-3D; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:40:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YzRS-0001kR-1y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:39:54 -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 WAA22646 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:39:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YzRO-00077H-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:39:50 -0400 Received: from 000-229-858.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.136.243] helo=68.27.136.243) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YzRL-000778-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:39:49 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030705222210.00b58db8@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] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis In-Reply-To: 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 WAA22647 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 05 Jul 2003 22:39:27 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 02:21 AM 7/5/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >... > >>Message: 14 >>Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:08:57 -0400 >>To: asrg@ietf.org >>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>Subject: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis >> >>As many group members have noticed in the last few days, Mr. McCarron h= as >>been posting a large volume of messages to the list regarding the GIEIS >>system that he is developing. The following is my analysis of his propo= sed >>system and how it falls within the consent framework (current draft at >>http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-consent-framework.html). = All >>quotes are from (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis/). >> >>--------- >>ANALYSIS >> >>The GIEIS system seems to be a convergence of two proposals: message >>tracking and centralization. Message tracking has been proposed by John >>Fenley as part of the C/R protocol and other proposals (callback, etc.). >>Centralization is not new but is similar to the other proposals on the = list >>especially Walter Dnes's "Business Email" proposal. This is also simila= r to >>the proposal by someone else who suggested registration of all SMTP ser= vers >>and perhaps issuing digital certificates to them. > > >Mark's Response: > >No. 'GIEIS' is a completely new architecture and protocol design for we= b=20 >based communications. It is not similar to issuing digital certificates. >'GIEIS' creates an additional layer in the net and a buffer for=20 >communication protocols from end users. By securing this inner=20 >communications layer with a centralised system based on encrypted=20 >communications it eliminates any fraudulent access. What is essentially being created is a centralized system combined with=20 messages tracking. The details are implementation. >.... > >> >>SUGGESTIONS TO MR. MCCARON >> >>1. Take all the BS out of your proposal and separate the main idea from= the >>implementation details. > > >Mark's Response: > >Please detail the 'BS'. Anything not related to email. All the parts about port scanning, viruses= ,=20 saving children, creating jobs, etc. are extra they can be detailed in th= e=20 implementation details and marketing materials. This group is concerned=20 with technical details and a concise technical draft is what we are looki= ng=20 for. >>2. Stop thinking that your system will take over the Net - any system >>implemented will need to accommodate multiple implementation details. Y= ou >>will be better off on proposing a system like Truste. > > >Mark's Response: > >'GIEIS' would be the center of the net for completely accurate informati= on=20 >of various kinds. A commercial body could never secure the Internet, it=20 >must be a public body. No one needs another cert. authority what they=20 >need is a corner-stone behind the Internet that can be trusted. America= n=20 >business is losing $10 Billion a year to spam if we used even =A32 Billi= on=20 >on wages alone we could have a staff of over 130,000 people at =A315,000= per=20 >year dedicated to the fight against internet fraud. Look at ICANN - its non profit - and then look at IcannWatch.com. Also, w= e=20 are looking for a concise technical document, marketing materials are=20 irrelevant - they just confuse. >>3. CREATE A SEPARATE mailing list or discussion area for your proposal >>where you can work out the kinks like the SPF proposal's author did. Th= en >>present us with a draft. > > >Mark's Response: > >Here will do just fine. 'GIEIS' has no 'kinks' to work out. Its a=20 >complete working system. The overview is being drafted in public from=20 >compiled notes on the system. Special focus has been given on areas of=20 >concern and thus developed at a faster rate. The GSMTP protocol is now=20 >under development. There is no need to carry the discussion on this proposal within our=20 mailing list. Please create a separate list for discussion. When you have= =20 written a concise technical draft without all the marketing BS in it, the= n=20 we will take a look at it. Otherwise, this is just a waste of CPU cycles. >>4. Participate in defining the consent framework. > > >Mark's Response: > >The consent framework will consist of white and black lists. There will= =20 >be no greylisting. A complete opt-out will be allowed by 'GIEIS'. The group's consent framework is what we are currently working on. >>5. Give credit where its due, when you use someone's idea - give credit. > >Mark's Response: > >Credit will be given where credit is due, however, the 'GIEIS'=20 >architecture is unique. Yet there are numerous proposals being lumped in the current proposal whi= ch=20 were not there in the original v.0.0.1 proposal and clearly come from our= =20 mailing list. If you want to use someone's idea from the list, give credi= t. Yakov=20 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jul 5 22:44:30 2003 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 WAA22765 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:44:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YzVV-0001ww-1G for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:44:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h662i5T1007488 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:44:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YzVU-0001vv-T8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:44:04 -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 WAA22755; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:43:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YzVR-00079X-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:44:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YzVQ-00079U-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:44:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YzVR-0001ti-Qb; Sat, 05 Jul 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 19YzUw-0001tM-2f for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:43:30 -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 WAA22748 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:43:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YzUs-00079E-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:43:26 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YzUs-00079B-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:43:26 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h662hQch023440; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 19:43:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 19:43:26 -0700 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D22D5@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Mark McCarron'" , research@solidmatrix.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis 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: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 19:43:24 -0700 > It is still import duty and deals only with those inside the > EU. Laws cannot be outside any legal juristiction they represent. As a matter of international law this is not the case. Many countries claim extra-territorial jurisdiction for their laws. In particular the US and Belgium have been very active in this regard, but most countries claim some form of jurisdiction. The US has laws that would cause the directors of the deBeers cartel to be arrested if they visited the US, in theory the directors of several EU firms could also be arrested for trading with Cuba, however this act has been stayed indefinitely after the EU passed reciprocal laws. The UK has recently arrested Pinnochet the ex-dictator of Chile whose war crimes are similar to the domestic crimes of Saddam. Pinochet was only released on a technicality. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jul 5 23:10:50 2003 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 XAA23182 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 23:10:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yzux-0002mC-HX for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 23:10:23 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h663AL5I010666 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 23:10:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yzuq-0002ko-C7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 23:10:16 -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 XAA23156; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 23:10:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yzum-0007In-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 23:10:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yzum-0007Ik-00; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 23:10:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Yzuf-0002io-TF; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 23:10:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YzuE-0002iE-Vq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 23:09:39 -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 XAA23131 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 23:09:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YzuB-0007IO-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 23:09:35 -0400 Received: from tyx.media3.net ([206.67.57.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Yzu9-0007IL-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 23:09:33 -0400 Received: from Ynvqdehdk (acc54496.ipt.aol.com [172.197.68.150]) by tyx.media3.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id WAA16206 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:48:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200307060248.WAA16206@tyx.media3.net> From: nazgul To: Asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=I2t6SimHJ9346Q08Qjv Subject: [Asrg] Hi,Asrg,darling Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 5 Jul 2003 22:48:25 -0400 (EDT) --I2t6SimHJ9346Q08Qjv Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------------------ Virus Warning Message (on ietf-mx) Found virus WORM_KLEZ.H in file f The uncleanable file f is moved to /etc/iscan/virus/virCLAtTaWW1. --------------------------------------------------------- --I2t6SimHJ9346Q08Qjv Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --I2t6SimHJ9346Q08Qjv Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------------------ Virus Warning Message (on ietf-mx) f is removed from here because it contains a virus. --------------------------------------------------------- --I2t6SimHJ9346Q08Qjv Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name=f;h=f;dcopt=ist;pos=1;tile=1;sz=300x250;!category=adult;ord=9418129[1].html Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: PGh0bWw+PGhlYWQ+PHRpdGxlPkNsaWNrIGhlcmUgdG8gZmluZCBvdXQgbW9yZSE8L3RpdGxl PjwvaGVhZD48Ym9keSBiZ2NvbG9yPSNmZmZmZmYgbWFyZ2lud2lkdGg9MCBtYXJnaW5oZWln aHQ9MCBsZWZ0bWFyZ2luPTAgdG9wbWFyZ2luPTA+PCEtLSBUZW1wbGF0ZSBJZCA9IDEgVGVt cGxhdGUgTmFtZSA9IEJhbm5lciBDcmVhdGl2ZSAoRmxhc2gpIC0tPgo8IS0tIENvcHlyaWdo dCAyMDAyIERvdWJsZUNsaWNrIEluYy4sIEFsbCByaWdodHMgcmVzZXJ2ZWQuIC0tPgo8U0NS SVBUIExBTkdVQUdFPUphdmFTY3JpcHQ+IAo8IS0tCnZhciBkY3N3ZiA9ICJodHRwOi8vbS5k b3VibGVjbGljay5uZXQvNzMyNDgzL3dlZWtfMzAweDI1MF8xNWszbC5zd2YiOyAKdmFyIGRj Z2lmID0gImh0dHA6Ly9tLmRvdWJsZWNsaWNrLm5ldC83MzI0ODMvd2hvXzMwMHgyNTBfMTVr M2wuZ2lmIjsgCnZhciBhZHZ1cmwgPSAiaHR0cDovL2xuLmRvdWJsZWNsaWNrLm5ldC9jbGlj ayUzQmg9djJ8MmZkMHwzfDB8JTJhfGglM0I1NzMyMjE1JTNCMy0wJTNCMCUzQjgxNTA5NDIl M0I0MzA3LTMwMHwyNTAlM0IyOTUxODIyfDI5NjAwNjZ8MSUzQiUzQiU3RWZkciUzRDU3Mjcw NDglM0IwLTAlM0IwJTNCNzk4NzA1MiUzQjQzMDctMzAwfDI1MCUzQjI5NTM0NTh8Mjk2MjIx OXwxJTNCJTNCJTNmaHR0cDovL3d3dy5tYXJyaW90dC5jb20vc3BlY2lhbHMvd2Vla2VuZC9k ZWZhdWx0LmFzcD9NS1RDTVA9THljb3NfQ09BUE1fSG9tZV8zMDB4MjUwIjsKdmFyIGRjYWR2 dXJsID0gZXNjYXBlKGFkdnVybCk7CnZhciBkY21pbnZlcnNpb24gPSA0Owp2YXIgZGNtYXh2 ZXJzaW9uID0gNzsKdmFyIHBsdWdpbiA9IGZhbHNlOwp2YXIgZGNjcmVhdGl2ZXdpZHRoID0g IjMwMCI7CnZhciBkY2NyZWF0aXZlaGVpZ2h0ID0gIjI1MCI7CnZhciBkY3dtb2RlID0gIndp bmRvdyI7CnZhciBkY2JnY29sb3IgPSAiIjsKCmlmICgoKG5hdmlnYXRvci5hcHBOYW1lID09 ICJOZXRzY2FwZSIpICYmIChuYXZpZ2F0b3IudXNlckFnZW50LmluZGV4T2YoIk1vemlsbGEi KSAhPSAtMSkgJiYgKHBhcnNlRmxvYXQobmF2aWdhdG9yLmFwcFZlcnNpb24pID49IDQpICYm IChuYXZpZ2F0b3IuamF2YUVuYWJsZWQoKSkgJiYgbmF2aWdhdG9yLm1pbWVUeXBlcyAmJiBu YXZpZ2F0b3IubWltZVR5cGVzWyJhcHBsaWNhdGlvbi94LXNob2Nrd2F2ZS1mbGFzaCJdICYm IG5hdmlnYXRvci5taW1lVHlwZXNbImFwcGxpY2F0aW9uL3gtc2hvY2t3YXZlLWZsYXNoIl0u ZW5hYmxlZFBsdWdpbikpIHsKdmFyIHBsdWduYW1lPW5hdmlnYXRvci5wbHVnaW5zWydTaG9j a3dhdmUgRmxhc2gnXS5kZXNjcmlwdGlvbjt2YXIgcGx1Z3N1Yj1wbHVnbmFtZS5zdWJzdHJp bmcocGx1Z25hbWUuaW5kZXhPZigiLiIpLC0xKTsgdmFyIHBsdWdzdWJzdHI9cGx1Z3N1Yi5z dWJzdHIoLTEpCmlmKCBwbHVnc3Vic3RyID49IGRjbWludmVyc2lvbikgeyBwbHVnaW4gPSB0 cnVlO30KfQplbHNlIGlmIChuYXZpZ2F0b3IudXNlckFnZW50ICYmIG5hdmlnYXRvci51c2Vy QWdlbnQuaW5kZXhPZigiTVNJRSIpPj0wICYmIChuYXZpZ2F0b3IudXNlckFnZW50LmluZGV4 T2YoIldpbmRvd3MgOTUiKT49MCB8fCBuYXZpZ2F0b3IudXNlckFnZW50LmluZGV4T2YoIldp bmRvd3MgOTgiKT49MCB8fCBuYXZpZ2F0b3IudXNlckFnZW50LmluZGV4T2YoIldpbmRvd3Mg TlQiKT49MCkgJiYgZG9jdW1lbnQuYWxsKSAKewpkb2N1bWVudC53cml0ZSgnPHNjcmlwdCBs YW5ndWFnZT1WQlNjcmlwdD4nICsgJ1xuJyArCiAgICdkY21heHZlcnNpb24gPSAnK2RjbWF4 dmVyc2lvbiArICdcbicgKwogICAnZGNtaW52ZXJzaW9uID0gJytkY21pbnZlcnNpb24gKyAn XG4nICsKICAgJ0RvJyArICdcbicgKwogICAgJ09uIEVycm9yIFJlc3VtZSBOZXh0JyArICdc bicgKwogICAgJ3BsdWdpbiA9IChJc09iamVjdChDcmVhdGVPYmplY3QoXCJTaG9ja3dhdmVG bGFzaC5TaG9ja3dhdmVGbGFzaC5cIiAmIGRjbWF4dmVyc2lvbiAmIFwiXCIpKSknICsgJ1xu JyArCiAgICAnSWYgcGx1Z2luID0gdHJ1ZSBUaGVuIEV4aXQgRG8nICsgJ1xuJyArCiAgICAn ZGNtYXh2ZXJzaW9uID0gZGNtYXh2ZXJzaW9uIC0gMScgKyAnXG4nICsKICAgICdMb29wIFdo aWxlIGRjbWF4dmVyc2lvbiA+PSBkY21pbnZlcnNpb24nICsgJ1xuJyArCiAgJzxcL3Njcmlw dD4nKTsKfQppZiAoIHBsdWdpbiApICB7CiBkb2N1bWVudC53cml0ZSgnPE9CSkVDVCBjbGFz c2lkPSJjbHNpZDpEMjdDREI2RS1BRTZELTExY2YtOTZCOC00NDQ1NTM1NDAwMDAiJyk7CiBk b2N1bWVudC53cml0ZSgnIGNvZGViYXNlPSJodHRwOi8vZG93bmxvYWQubWFjcm9tZWRpYS5j b20vcHViL3Nob2Nrd2F2ZS9jYWJzL2ZsYXNoL3N3Zmxhc2guY2FiI3ZlcnNpb249MywwLDAs MCIgJyk7CiBkb2N1bWVudC53cml0ZSgnIElEPUZMQVNIX0FEIFdJRFRIPSInKyBkY2NyZWF0 aXZld2lkdGggKyciIEhFSUdIVD0iJysgZGNjcmVhdGl2ZWhlaWdodCArJyI+Jyk7CiBkb2N1 bWVudC53cml0ZSgnPFBBUkFNIE5BTUU9bW92aWUgVkFMVUU9IicgKyBkY3N3ZiArICc/Y2xp Y2tUYWc9JysgZGNhZHZ1cmwgKyciPjxQQVJBTSBOQU1FPXF1YWxpdHkgVkFMVUU9YXV0b2hp Z2g+PFBBUkFNIE5BTUU9Ymdjb2xvciBWQUxVRT0jJysgZGNiZ2NvbG9yICsnPjxQQVJBTSBO QU1FPXdtb2RlIFZBTFVFPScrIGRjd21vZGUgKyc+Jyk7IAogZG9jdW1lbnQud3JpdGUoJzxF TUJFRCBzcmM9IicgKyBkY3N3ZiArICc/Y2xpY2tUYWc9JysgZGNhZHZ1cmwgKyciIHF1YWxp dHk9YXV0b2hpZ2gnKTsKIGRvY3VtZW50LndyaXRlKCcgc3dMaXZlQ29ubmVjdD1UUlVFIFdJ RFRIPSInKyBkY2NyZWF0aXZld2lkdGggKyciIEhFSUdIVD0iJysgZGNjcmVhdGl2ZWhlaWdo dCArJyIgYmdjb2xvcj0jJysgZGNiZ2NvbG9yKTsKIGRvY3VtZW50LndyaXRlKCcgVFlQRT0i YXBwbGljYXRpb24veC1zaG9ja3dhdmUtZmxhc2giIFBMVUdJTlNQQUdFPSJodHRwOi8vd3d3 Lm1hY3JvbWVkaWEuY29tL3Nob2Nrd2F2ZS9kb3dubG9hZC9pbmRleC5jZ2k/UDFfUHJvZF9W ZXJzaW9uPVNob2Nrd2F2ZUZsYXNoIj4nKTsKIGRvY3VtZW50LndyaXRlKCc8L0VNQkVEPicp OwogZG9jdW1lbnQud3JpdGUoJzwvT0JKRUNUPicpOwp9IGVsc2UgaWYgKCEobmF2aWdhdG9y LmFwcE5hbWUgJiYgbmF2aWdhdG9yLmFwcE5hbWUuaW5kZXhPZigiTmV0c2NhcGUiKT49MCAm JiBuYXZpZ2F0b3IuYXBwVmVyc2lvbi5pbmRleE9mKCIyLiIpPj0wKSl7CiBkb2N1bWVudC53 cml0ZSgnPEEgVEFSR0VUPSJfdG9wIiBIUkVGPSJodHRwOi8vbG4uZG91YmxlY2xpY2submV0 L2NsaWNrJTNCaD12MnwyZmQwfDN8MHwlMmF8aCUzQjU3MzIyMTUlM0IzLTAlM0IwJTNCODE1 MDk0MiUzQjQzMDctMzAwfDI1MCUzQjI5NTE4MjJ8Mjk2MDA2NnwxJTNCJTNCJTdFZmRyJTNE NTcyNzA0OCUzQjAtMCUzQjAlM0I3OTg3MDUyJTNCNDMwNy0zMDB8MjUwJTNCMjk1MzQ1OHwy OTYyMjE5fDElM0IlM0IlM2ZodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm1hcnJpb3R0LmNvbS9zcGVjaWFscy93ZWVr ZW5kL2RlZmF1bHQuYXNwP01LVENNUD1MeWNvc19DT0FQTV9Ib21lXzMwMHgyNTAiPjxJTUcg U1JDPSInICsgZGNnaWYgKyAnIiBCT1JERVI9MD48L0E+Jyk7Cn0KLy8tLT4KPC9TQ1JJUFQ+ PE5PRU1CRUQ+PEEgVEFSR0VUPSJfdG9wIiBIUkVGPSJodHRwOi8vbG4uZG91YmxlY2xpY2su bmV0L2NsaWNrJTNCaD12MnwyZmQwfDN8MHwlMmF8aCUzQjU3MzIyMTUlM0IzLTAlM0IwJTNC ODE1MDk0MiUzQjQzMDctMzAwfDI1MCUzQjI5NTE4MjJ8Mjk2MDA2NnwxJTNCJTNCJTdFZmRy JTNENTcyNzA0OCUzQjAtMCUzQjAlM0I3OTg3MDUyJTNCNDMwNy0zMDB8MjUwJTNCMjk1MzQ1 OHwyOTYyMjE5fDElM0IlM0IlM2ZodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm1hcnJpb3R0LmNvbS9zcGVjaWFscy93 ZWVrZW5kL2RlZmF1bHQuYXNwP01LVENNUD1MeWNvc19DT0FQTV9Ib21lXzMwMHgyNTAiPjxJ TUcgU1JDPSJodHRwOi8vbS5kb3VibGVjbGljay5uZXQvNzMyNDgzL3dob18zMDB4MjUwXzE1 azNsLmdpZiIgQk9SREVSPTA+PC9BPjwvTk9FTUJFRD48Tk9TQ1JJUFQ+PEEgVEFSR0VUPSJf dG9wIiBIUkVGPSJodHRwOi8vbG4uZG91YmxlY2xpY2submV0L2NsaWNrJTNCaD12MnwyZmQw fDN8MHwlMmF8aCUzQjU3MzIyMTUlM0IzLTAlM0IwJTNCODE1MDk0MiUzQjQzMDctMzAwfDI1 MCUzQjI5NTE4MjJ8Mjk2MDA2NnwxJTNCJTNCJTdFZmRyJTNENTcyNzA0OCUzQjAtMCUzQjAl M0I3OTg3MDUyJTNCNDMwNy0zMDB8MjUwJTNCMjk1MzQ1OHwyOTYyMjE5fDElM0IlM0IlM2Zo dHRwOi8vd3d3Lm1hcnJpb3R0LmNvbS9zcGVjaWFscy93ZWVrZW5kL2RlZmF1bHQuYXNwP01L VENNUD1MeWNvc19DT0FQTV9Ib21lXzMwMHgyNTAiPjxJTUcgU1JDPSJodHRwOi8vbS5kb3Vi bGVjbGljay5uZXQvNzMyNDgzL3dob18zMDB4MjUwXzE1azNsLmdpZiIgQk9SREVSPTA+PC9B PjwvTk9TQ1JJUFQ+PC9ib2R5PjwvaHRtbD=9 --I2t6SimHJ9346Q08Qjv-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 6 00:24:48 2003 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 AAA24327 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 00:24:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Z14X-0004tM-W5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:24:22 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h664OLiH018798 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 00:24:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Z14X-0004t7-Pd for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:24:21 -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 AAA24276; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 00:24:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Z14U-0007eq-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:24:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Z14T-0007ej-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:24:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Z14E-0004dK-0w; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:24:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Z0Kg-0003Ki-0h for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 23:36:58 -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 XAA23751 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 23:36:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Z0Ke-0007UO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 23:36:56 -0400 Received: from 000-242-144.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.185.83] helo=68.27.185.83) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Z0Kb-0007UG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 23:36:54 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030705233616.00ba5c18@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] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis 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 XAA23752 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 05 Jul 2003 23:36:17 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 03:26 AM 7/6/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >Version 0.005 - Updated 6th July 2003 > >GIEIS - Global ISP Email Identity System - The Ultimate Anti-Spam System >a.k.a. - The Digital Reaper > >=A9 Including intellectual copyright, Mark McCarron 2003, All rights res= erved > > >http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis/ > >Mark McCarron. > > >>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>To: "Mark McCarron" ,asrg@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis >>Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:37:34 -0400 >> >>At 02:31 AM 7/6/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>>To: "Mark McCarron" >>>>Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis >>>>Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:16:34 -0400 >>>> >>>>At 02:21 AM 7/5/2003 +0000, you wrote: >>>>>... >>>>> >>>>>>Message: 29 >>>>>>Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:02:47 -0400 >>>>>>To: "Mark McCarron" , asrg@ietf.org >>>>>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>>>>Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS >>>>>> >>>>>>At 08:48 PM 7/4/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>>>>> >... >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>-- __--__-- >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>Message: 13 >>>>>> >>Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:32:27 -0400 >>>>>> >>To: "Mark McCarron" , asrg@ietf.or= g >>>>>> >>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>>>> >>Subject: 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS (was Re: [Asrg] R= e: >>>>>> >> 'GIEIS' - The Fourth Response (Esa Laitinen)) >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>Mr. McCarron, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>Case in point: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>On July 1st EU countries started charging VAT taxes on most digi= tal >>>>>> >>transactions performed by non-EU companies to EU consumers. EU=20 >>>>>> laws seem to >>>>>> >>apply here to companies outside the jurisdiction of the EU. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >Mark's Response: >>>>>> > >>>>>> >This is really import duty, a taxsation on goods imported into a >>>>>> >country/region. This has two main puposes, generate revenue and = to >>>>>> >stabilize economies from the impact of cheap imports. This is a >>>>>> >completely different legal area than a port scan. >>>>>> >>>>>>I will spell it out: EU LAWS SEEM TO APPLY HERE TO COMPANIES OUTSID= E THE >>>>>>JURISDICTION OF THE EU. That was the point I was trying to make. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Mark's Response: >>>>> >>>>>You spell things out when you type anyway, so a bit redundant. Let = me=20 >>>>>make this point clear, the tax is applied to companies within the EU= =20 >>>>>boundries when importing. Nothing to do with anything outside its=20 >>>>>jurisdiction. >>>> >>>>The VAT taxes are being applied to companies that are Internet based=20 >>>>and are located outside the EU. Having their digital products=20 >>>>downloaded on their territory OUTSIDE the EU where the download serve= r=20 >>>>is based, by people present inside the EU puts them under the EU . Th= e=20 >>>>EU feels that its laws apply to anyone outside the EU itself AS LONG = AS=20 >>>>they interact with EU citizens. By extension port scanning servers=20 >>>>based in EU even thought you are outside of the EU will make you come= =20 >>>>under the laws of the EU since you are interacting with EU citizens.=20 >>>>The same logic also underlies the EU privacy laws which apply to=20 >>>>companies outside the EU if they interact with citizens within the EU. >>> >>>Mark's Response: >>> >>>It is still import duty and deals only with those inside the EU. Laws= =20 >>>cannot be outside any legal juristiction they represent. >> >>And how does the EU plan on collection VAT taxes in this case? Apparent= ly=20 >>they feel that if a company interacts with a EU citizen within the EU=20 >>portion of cyberspace, that is enough to put the company into EU's lega= l=20 >>jurisdiction. > >Mark's Response: > >The duty is collected from those within the EU jurisdiction. It is not=20 >collected from those external companies. From (http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,52325,00.html): "Under the EU bill, U.S. and other non-EU firms will be asked for the fir= st=20 time to levy value-added tax on e-commerce with private customers in the=20 15-nation bloc. " =20 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 6 00:24:55 2003 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 AAA24381 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 00:24:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Z14d-0004uG-Hl for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:24:29 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h664ORr8018854 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 00:24:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Z14d-0004u1-ES for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:24:27 -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 AAA24280; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 00:24:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Z14V-0007et-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:24:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Z14T-0007el-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:24:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Z14E-0004dh-TB; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:24:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Z0bz-0003t2-46 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 23:54:51 -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 XAA23877 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 23:54:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Z0bw-0007WA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 23:54:48 -0400 Received: from bay8-f58.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.58] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Z0bw-0007W7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 23:54:48 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 20:54:18 -0700 Received: from 62.252.224.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 03:54:18 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.224.5] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: pbaker@verisign.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2003 03:54:18.0885 (UTC) FILETIME=[46C05B50:01C34372] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id XAA23878 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Jul 2003 03:54:18 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This post relates to the 'GIEIS' system Version 0.005 - Updated 6th July 2003 GIEIS - Global ISP Email Identity System - The Ultimate Anti-Spam System a.k.a. - The Digital Reaper =A9 Including intellectual copyright, Mark McCarron 2003, All rights rese= rved http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. >From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" >To: "'Mark McCarron'" ,=20 >research@solidmatrix.com, asrg@ietf.org >Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis >Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 19:43:24 -0700 > > > It is still import duty and deals only with those inside the > > EU. Laws cannot be outside any legal juristiction they represent. > >As a matter of international law this is not the case. > >Many countries claim extra-territorial jurisdiction for their laws. In >particular the US and Belgium have been very active in this regard, but=20 >most >countries claim some form of jurisdiction. Mark's Response: Trying to impose their values ond legal systems on other countries has be= en=20 a favorite with these two, however, as yet, unsucessful. Many claims are= =20 made but none have been upheld. > >The US has laws that would cause the directors of the deBeers cartel to = be >arrested if they visited the US, in theory the directors of several EU=20 >firms >could also be arrested for trading with Cuba, however this act has been >stayed indefinitely after the EU passed reciprocal laws. Mark's Response: I am aware of these type of scenarios, however, the simplist solution is = to=20 avoid the country in question. Nothing can be done about that. > >The UK has recently arrested Pinnochet the ex-dictator of Chile whose wa= r >crimes are similar to the domestic crimes of Saddam. Pinochet was only >released on a technicality. Mark's Response: This was due to violations of International law, quite different. Mark McCarron. _________________________________________________________________ Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you.=20 http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 6 01:03:34 2003 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 BAA24830 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 01:03:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Z1g2-0006IE-Ok for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 01:03:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h665360b024184 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 01:03:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Z1g2-0006Hz-Kl for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 01:03:06 -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 BAA24822; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 01:03:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Z1fz-00001n-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 01:03:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Z1fy-00001k-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 01:03:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Z1fw-0006Ex-UN; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 01:03:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Z1fJ-0006Ej-H2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 01:02:21 -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 BAA24819 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 01:02:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Z1fG-00001h-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 01:02:18 -0400 Received: from [63.175.177.49] (helo=deepskytech.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Z1fG-00001e-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 01:02:18 -0400 Received: from 63.175.177.201 (63.175.177.201) by deepskytech.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 3.2.1) for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 05:02:19 +0100 From: "Steven G. Willis" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis To: asrg@ietf.org X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030705235201.00b58db8@std5.imagineis.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 2.0 (Blindsider) 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, 6 Jul 2003 05:02:02 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 07/06/2003 at 00:02 it was written: >At 03:47 AM 7/6/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron continued his neverending babble: Please, can not someone finally get rid of this individual once and for all? The total lack of understanding on the part of Mr. McCarron, and his continued abuse of the resources of this list, should be clear enough even to the most discerning of standards. ================================================================ Steven G. Willis sgwillis@deepskytech.com 772.794.9494 Deep Sky Technologies, Inc. http://www.deepskytech.com/ http://www.badchickens.com/ http://www.store-secure.com/ ================================================================ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 6 01:09:49 2003 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 AAA24332 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 00:24:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Z14Y-0004tt-O8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:24:22 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h664OMsc018832 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 00:24:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Z14Y-0004tW-L8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:24:22 -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 AAA24284; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 00:24:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Z14V-0007f0-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:24:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Z14U-0007ew-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:24:18 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Z14F-0004f6-QT; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:24:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Z0jl-00043s-D4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:02:53 -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 AAA23948 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 00:02:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Z0jj-0007Zi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:02:51 -0400 Received: from 000-242-144.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.185.83] helo=68.27.185.83 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Z0jh-0007Zf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:02:50 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030705235201.00b58db8@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] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis 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, 06 Jul 2003 00:02:05 -0400 At 03:47 AM 7/6/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >... >> >>>>4. Participate in defining the consent framework. >>> >>>Mark's Response: >>> >>>The consent framework will consist of white and black lists. There will >>>be no greylisting. A complete opt-out will be allowed by 'GIEIS'. >> >>The group's consent framework is what we are currently working on. > >Mark's Response: > >With all the self-interested posts that appear here with inaccurate >information, a coherent consent framework is highly unlikely to develop. We are chartered to created such framework (http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html) and a draft is available. If you had been following the discussions for the last few days you would have seen that they are concentrated on that framework. If you do not wish to contribute to anything else than your own proposal, then create your own mailing list for its discussion and leave the group. This is what the author of the SPF proposal did. Additionally, this is a technical forum not a Madison Avenue marketing firm. We are not interested in your marketing materials, or promises of salvation from porn and spam. We are looking at technical details only and do not wish to be informed of "how many jobs" your proposal will create or how much money it will make. ------- ".... when suddenly a White Rabbit with pink eyes ran close by her .... but when the Rabbit actually took a watch out of its waistcoat-pocket, and looked at it, and then hurried on, Alice started to her feet, for it flashed across her mind that she had never before seen a rabbit with either a waistcoat-pocket, or a watch to take out of it, and burning with curiosity, she ran across the field after it, and fortunately was just in time to see it pop down a large rabbit-hole under the hedge. In another moment down went Alice after it, never once considering how in the world she was to get out again. The rabbit-hole went straight on like a tunnel for some way, and then dipped suddenly down, so suddenly that Alice had not a moment to think about stopping herself before she found herself falling down a very deep well ....." -------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 6 01:09:50 2003 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 AAA24331 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 00:24:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Z14Y-0004tf-Lh for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:24:22 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h664OMrM018816 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 00:24:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Z14Y-0004tP-GU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:24:22 -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 AAA24286; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 00:24:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Z14V-0007ex-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:24:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Z14T-0007eo-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:24:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Z14E-0004dV-FQ; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:24:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Z0Vp-0003nJ-0J for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 23:48:29 -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 XAA23865 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 23:48:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Z0Vm-0007Vo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 23:48:26 -0400 Received: from bay8-f83.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.83] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Z0Vm-0007Vl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jul 2003 23:48:26 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 20:47:56 -0700 Received: from 62.252.224.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 03:47:56 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.224.5] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: research@solidmatrix.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2003 03:47:56.0654 (UTC) FILETIME=[62EC88E0:01C34371] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id XAA23866 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Jul 2003 03:47:56 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This post relates to the 'GIEIS' system. Version 0.005 - Updated 6th July 2003 GIEIS - Global ISP Email Identity System - The Ultimate Anti-Spam System a.k.a. - The Digital Reaper =A9 Including intellectual copyright, Mark McCarron 2003, All rights rese= rved http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron >From: Yakov Shafranovich >To: "Mark McCarron" ,asrg@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis >Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:39:27 -0400 > >At 02:21 AM 7/5/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>... >> >>>Message: 14 >>>Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:08:57 -0400 >>>To: asrg@ietf.org >>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>Subject: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis >>> >>>As many group members have noticed in the last few days, Mr. McCarron = has >>>been posting a large volume of messages to the list regarding the GIEI= S >>>system that he is developing. The following is my analysis of his=20 >>>proposed >>>system and how it falls within the consent framework (current draft at >>>http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-consent-framework.html).= =20 >>>All >>>quotes are from (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis/). >>> >>>--------- >>>ANALYSIS >>> >>>The GIEIS system seems to be a convergence of two proposals: message >>>tracking and centralization. Message tracking has been proposed by Joh= n >>>Fenley as part of the C/R protocol and other proposals (callback, etc.= ). >>>Centralization is not new but is similar to the other proposals on the= =20 >>>list >>>especially Walter Dnes's "Business Email" proposal. This is also simil= ar=20 >>>to >>>the proposal by someone else who suggested registration of all SMTP=20 >>>servers >>>and perhaps issuing digital certificates to them. >> >> >>Mark's Response: >> >>No. 'GIEIS' is a completely new architecture and protocol design for w= eb=20 >>based communications. It is not similar to issuing digital certificate= s. >>'GIEIS' creates an additional layer in the net and a buffer for=20 >>communication protocols from end users. By securing this inner=20 >>communications layer with a centralised system based on encrypted=20 >>communications it eliminates any fraudulent access. > >What is essentially being created is a centralized system combined with=20 >messages tracking. The details are implementation. > Mark's Response: No. Please refer to the 'GIEIS' homepage and study the proposed system. >>.... >> >>> >>>SUGGESTIONS TO MR. MCCARON >>> >>>1. Take all the BS out of your proposal and separate the main idea fro= m=20 >>>the >>>implementation details. >> >> >>Mark's Response: >> >>Please detail the 'BS'. > >Anything not related to email. All the parts about port scanning, viruse= s,=20 >saving children, creating jobs, etc. are extra they can be detailed in t= he=20 >implementation details and marketing materials. This group is concerned=20 >with technical details and a concise technical draft is what we are look= ing=20 >for. > Mark's Response: 'GIEIS' is a complete solution to many issues including spam. Spam is al= so=20 not an 'email only' issue. > > >>>2. Stop thinking that your system will take over the Net - any system >>>implemented will need to accommodate multiple implementation details. = You >>>will be better off on proposing a system like Truste. >> >> >>Mark's Response: >> >>'GIEIS' would be the center of the net for completely accurate informat= ion=20 >>of various kinds. A commercial body could never secure the Internet, it= =20 >>must be a public body. No one needs another cert. authority what they=20 >>need is a corner-stone behind the Internet that can be trusted. Americ= an=20 >>business is losing $10 Billion a year to spam if we used even =A32 Bill= ion=20 >>on wages alone we could have a staff of over 130,000 people at =A315,00= 0 per=20 >>year dedicated to the fight against internet fraud. > >Look at ICANN - its non profit - and then look at IcannWatch.com. Also, = we=20 >are looking for a concise technical document, marketing materials are=20 >irrelevant - they just confuse. > Mark's Response: Technical details are available at the homepage. > > >>>3. CREATE A SEPARATE mailing list or discussion area for your proposal >>>where you can work out the kinks like the SPF proposal's author did. T= hen >>>present us with a draft. >> >> >>Mark's Response: >> >>Here will do just fine. 'GIEIS' has no 'kinks' to work out. Its a=20 >>complete working system. The overview is being drafted in public from=20 >>compiled notes on the system. Special focus has been given on areas of= =20 >>concern and thus developed at a faster rate. The GSMTP protocol is now= =20 >>under development. > >There is no need to carry the discussion on this proposal within our=20 >mailing list. Please create a separate list for discussion. When you hav= e=20 >written a concise technical draft without all the marketing BS in it, th= en=20 >we will take a look at it. Otherwise, this is just a waste of CPU cycles. > Mark's Response: No one is asking you to look at anything. > >>>4. Participate in defining the consent framework. >> >> >>Mark's Response: >> >>The consent framework will consist of white and black lists. There wil= l=20 >>be no greylisting. A complete opt-out will be allowed by 'GIEIS'. > >The group's consent framework is what we are currently working on. Mark's Response: With all the self-interested posts that appear here with inaccurate=20 information, a coherent consent framework is highly unlikely to develop. > > >>>5. Give credit where its due, when you use someone's idea - give credi= t. >> >>Mark's Response: >> >>Credit will be given where credit is due, however, the 'GIEIS'=20 >>architecture is unique. > >Yet there are numerous proposals being lumped in the current proposal wh= ich=20 >were not there in the original v.0.0.1 proposal and clearly come from ou= r=20 >mailing list. If you want to use someone's idea from the list, give cred= it. Mark's Response: Nonsense. v.0.001 onwards is a compliation of notes on the system. Aspec= ts=20 will appear as documentation is written. Mark McCarron. _________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger=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 Sun Jul 6 03:07:38 2003 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 DAA08165 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 03:07:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Z3c8-0002Jv-QG for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 03:07:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6677CR4008917 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 03:07:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Z3c8-0002Jk-EJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 03:07:12 -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 DAA08159; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 03:07:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Z3c4-0000TY-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 03:07:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Z3c3-0000TV-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 03:07:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Z3by-0002FS-CC; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 03:07:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Z3bM-0002EU-9x for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 03:06:24 -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 DAA08146 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 03:06:19 -0400 (EDT) From: gieisclownfanclub@inbox.lv Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Z3bI-0000TF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 03:06:20 -0400 Received: from timmy.inbox.lv ([81.94.227.7]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Z3bH-0000Si-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 03:06:19 -0400 Received: (qmail 16311 invoked by uid 1005); 6 Jul 2003 07:05:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO spampd.localdomain) (10.0.1.7) by 10.0.1.7 with SMTP; 6 Jul 2003 07:05:44 -0000 Received: from 67.118.247.84 ( [67.118.247.84]) as user gieisclownfanclub@10.0.1.1 by www1.inbox.lv with HTTP; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 10:05:44 +0300 Message-ID: <1057475144.3f07ca4811c6c@www1.inbox.lv> To: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: inbox.lv 4.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [Asrg] ::: G_I/E.I_-S - Moving Forward - srrrrppp Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 6 Jul 2003 10:05:44 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit All, Despite the negativity about G1EIS on this list, a small group of us, visionaries and egyptologues for the most part, have seen the Light and have recognized the Hand of Genius. We think this list with its interminable criticisms is simply wasting Mark's Precious Time which should instead be dedicated on building GlElS with the 100's of ISPs who are salivating and waiting, money in hand, to be among the First Chosen Ones to Deploy. While on the funding topic, we have not been able to confirm yet the rumor that, after reading Mark's response to his WSJ letter, Bill, Himself, has offered a very large funding, sans condition. Anyhow, we advise the members of the ASRG list TO STOP SENDING COMMENTS to Mark who should not be distracted from His Work. Don't slow down the GI3IZ unescapable future! On to Version 0.00000000013 in the next couple hours ! - The GIE|Z CFC - p.s. Our apologies for altering the acronym of The System in this modest contribution but we suspect that there is an ongoing conspiracy among a number of anti-spam vendors reading this list. It is possible they were already behind the initial attempt at blocking His Website. Thanks God, that failed but we need to remain vigilant: there is a chance that they have started to add the real acronym of The System to their soon-to-be-obsoleted-by-The-System-anti- spam-filters. Thus we conservatively opted for the use of somewhat spammy but more filter-proof spellings of The System's acronym. Copyright (c) The Anonymously Lame GCFC - 2oo3 - All rights (to pile it high) reserved - --- This message contains no viruses. Guaranteed by Kaspersky Anti-Virus. www.antivirus.lv _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 6 09:20:44 2003 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 JAA12651 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 09:20:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Z9RB-0005Wx-Jt for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 09:20:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66DKHdk021255 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 09:20:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Z9RB-0005Wk-FJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 09:20:17 -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 JAA12647; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 09:20:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Z9R9-00022F-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 09:20:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Z9R9-00022C-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 09:20:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Z9Qw-0005UX-Aj; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 09:20:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Z9Qh-0005Tl-84 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 09:19:47 -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 JAA12637 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 09:19:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Z9Qf-000223-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 09:19:45 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Z9Qe-000220-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 09:19:45 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h66DJhch001808; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 06:19:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 06:19:44 -0700 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D22D7@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Mark McCarron'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 06:19:42 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > This post relates to the 'GIEIS' system This one does not. > =A9 Including intellectual copyright, Mark McCarron 2003, All=20 > rights reserved By posting in this forum you are agreeing to abide by the IRTF IPR policy (such as it is). There is no such thing as intellectual copyright. If you do not want to accept the IPR policy of the group then stop posting here. > Trying to impose their values ond legal systems on other=20 > countries has been=20 > a favorite with these two, however, as yet, unsucessful. =20 > Many claims are=20 > made but none have been upheld. Ex-President Noriega of Panama is in jail in Florida as a result of an = extra teritorial judgement. >I am aware of these type of scenarios, however, the simplist solution = is to >avoid the country in question. Nothing can be done about that. The simplest solution would be to avoid GIEIS and anyone promoting = similar schemes. > This was due to violations of International law, quite different. The extrateritorial application of national law *is* International law. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 6 11:09:36 2003 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 LAA15478 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 11:09:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZB8Z-00080J-56 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:09:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66F9BVA030766 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 11:09:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZB8Z-000809-21 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:09:11 -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 LAA15472; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 11:09:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZB8W-0002yk-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:09:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZB8V-0002yh-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:09:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZB8P-0007yC-Ay; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:09:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZB88-0007wg-0w for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:08:44 -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 LAA15460 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 11:08:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZB85-0002yG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:08:41 -0400 Received: from bay8-f96.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.96] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZB84-0002xo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:08:40 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 08:08:09 -0700 Received: from 62.252.128.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 15:08:09 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.128.5] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2003 15:08:09.0836 (UTC) FILETIME=[6979E2C0:01C343D0] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Jul 2003 15:08:09 +0000 This post relates to the 'GIEIS' system. The release version is 0.005 and details job creations of up to 2.26 Million. The 'GIEIS' system can be viewed here: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. >From: Yakov Shafranovich >To: "Mark McCarron" ,asrg@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis >Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:02:05 -0400 > >At 03:47 AM 7/6/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>... >>> >>>>>4. Participate in defining the consent framework. >>>> >>>>Mark's Response: >>>> >>>>The consent framework will consist of white and black lists. There will >>>>be no greylisting. A complete opt-out will be allowed by 'GIEIS'. >>> >>>The group's consent framework is what we are currently working on. >> >>Mark's Response: >> >>With all the self-interested posts that appear here with inaccurate >>information, a coherent consent framework is highly unlikely to develop. > >We are chartered to created such framework >(http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html) and a draft is available. If you >had been following the discussions for the last few days you would have >seen that they are concentrated on that framework. If you do not wish to >contribute to anything else than your own proposal, then create your own >mailing list for its discussion and leave the group. This is what the >author of the SPF proposal did. Mark's Response: I have been following the discussion for the last few days. Frankly, I have never seen so much nonsense posted in such a short period of time. The 'consent framework' is a few hours worth of work at most and full of things that are already known or done, how long did it take the group to develop this?? Since its creation??? It is not in the financial interests of this group to develop a solution as it would put the majority of posters and their associated firms completely out of business. Thus, to anyone with any knowledge of the subject, it is very clear when people run around in circles deliberatly to prevent solutions from being developed. This is a daily occurance at the Asrg. > >Additionally, this is a technical forum not a Madison Avenue marketing >firm. We are not interested in your marketing materials, or promises of >salvation from porn and spam. We are looking at technical details only and >do not wish to be informed of "how many jobs" your proposal will create or >how much money it will make. > Mark's Response: So, this is what you call a technical forum?? Hardly any of you could understand the 'GIEIS' system until big daigrams appeared. Furthermore, the issue lies solely at the SMTP protocol and the existing architecture of the Internet. Nowhere else. It can never be fixed unless 'GIEIS' is implemented. The 'frameworks' and 'solutions' that have appeared in this forum defy even common sense at times, let alone technical reasoning. If you want a forum were businesses prevent the development of solutions, the the Asrg is becoming very close to it. Almost everyone, including the current chair, has open conflicts of interest in regards to the issue of spam. In the past, Internet architecture has been an open affair for all to contribute too. Due to the large sums of money now involved this practice will most likely be discontinued due to the conflicts of interest present. Honestly, do you really think no one would notice that 99% of postings made to this group are junk designed to keep the issue going?? Mark McCarron http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis _________________________________________________________________ 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 Sun Jul 6 11:19:33 2003 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 LAA15639 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 11:19:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZBIA-0008LG-4O for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:19:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66FJ6CP032060 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 11:19:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZBIA-0008L1-03 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:19:06 -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 LAA15630; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 11:19:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZBI9-00035J-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:19:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZBI8-00035G-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:19:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZBI4-0008I2-Ol; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:19:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZBI2-0008Hr-Il for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:18:58 -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 LAA15619 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 11:18:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZBI1-000352-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:18:57 -0400 Received: from bay8-f54.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.54] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZBI0-00034w-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:18:57 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 08:18:26 -0700 Received: from 62.252.128.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 15:18:26 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.128.5] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: pbaker@verisign.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2003 15:18:26.0544 (UTC) FILETIME=[D9100F00:01C343D1] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id LAA15620 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Jul 2003 15:18:26 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This post relates to the 'GIEIS' system. The release version is 0.005 an= d=20 details job creations of up to 2.26 Million. The 'GIEIS' system can be=20 viewed here: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. >From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" >To: "'Mark McCarron'" , "Hallam-Baker,=20 >Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org >Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis >Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 06:19:42 -0700 > > > This post relates to the 'GIEIS' system > >This one does not. > > > > =A9 Including intellectual copyright, Mark McCarron 2003, All > > rights reserved > >By posting in this forum you are agreeing to abide by the IRTF >IPR policy (such as it is). There is no such thing as intellectual >copyright. > >If you do not want to accept the IPR policy of the group then >stop posting here. Mark's Response: 'GIEIS' is well legally protected. Just because the system is discussed=20 here, does not mean it gives away any rights. Just because you can talk=20 about MS Outlook Express does not mean you own it or can use any of its=20 features. Also, I think you are more worried that 'GIEIS will result in the closure= of=20 Verisign as its services would be completely redundant. > > > Trying to impose their values ond legal systems on other > > countries has been > > a favorite with these two, however, as yet, unsucessful. > > Many claims are > > made but none have been upheld. > >Ex-President Noriega of Panama is in jail in Florida as a result of an=20 >extra >teritorial judgement. Mark's Response: Yes, and the US is also holding about 600 in a 'legal blackhole', doesn't= =20 make it legal to the rest of the world. > > >I am aware of these type of scenarios, however, the simplist solution = is=20 >to > > >avoid the country in question. Nothing can be done about that. > >The simplest solution would be to avoid GIEIS and anyone promoting simil= ar >schemes. > > > This was due to violations of International law, quite different. > >The extrateritorial application of national law *is* International law. Mark's Response: No, International law is quite seperate from National law. They do,=20 however, have similar laws. Also, I don't see any country in the world=20 obtaining an extradition warrant for a port scan. Mark McCarron http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis _________________________________________________________________ On the move? Get Hotmail on your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmob= ile _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 6 11:24:31 2003 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 LAA15701 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 11:24:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZBMy-0008Sj-JI for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:24:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66FO4UR032523 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 11:24:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZBMy-0008ST-EH for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:24:04 -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 LAA15697; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 11:24:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZBMx-00036R-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:24:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZBMw-00036O-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:24:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZBMv-0008Qb-Er; Sun, 06 Jul 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 19ZBMW-0008QP-BE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:23:36 -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 LAA15685 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 11:23:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZBMV-000368-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:23:35 -0400 Received: from bay8-f86.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.86] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZBMU-000365-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:23:34 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 08:23:04 -0700 Received: from 62.252.128.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 15:23:03 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.128.5] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - CNET story released tomorrow Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2003 15:23:04.0067 (UTC) FILETIME=[7E7AB530:01C343D2] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id LAA15686 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Jul 2003 15:23:03 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From the information that I have received a story will be published tomor= row=20 on the 'GIEIS' system by CNET. An interview was completed earlier this=20 week. The link will be posted here when available. Version 0.005 - Updated 6th July 2003 GIEIS - Global ISP Email Identity System - The Ultimate Anti-Spam System a.k.a. - The Digital Reaper =A9 Including intellectual copyright, Mark McCarron 2003, All rights rese= rved. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis 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 Sun Jul 6 11:45:35 2003 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 LAA15885 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 11:45:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZBhK-0000gL-JO for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:45:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66Fj6g0002617 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 11:45:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZBhK-0000g8-GS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:45:06 -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 LAA15881; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 11:45:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZBhJ-0003Av-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:45:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZBhI-0003As-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:45:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZBhF-0000eB-6h; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:45:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZBgp-0000cO-0O for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:44:35 -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 LAA15865 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 11:44:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZBgn-0003AU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:44:33 -0400 Received: from 000-244-249.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.193.156] helo=68.27.193.156 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZBgl-0003AR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:44:32 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030706114355.00bbbfe0@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] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis 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, 06 Jul 2003 11:43:57 -0400 At 03:08 PM 7/6/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >.... > >>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>To: "Mark McCarron" ,asrg@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis >>Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:02:05 -0400 >> >>At 03:47 AM 7/6/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>>... >>>> >>>>>>4. Participate in defining the consent framework. >>>>> >>>>>Mark's Response: >>>>> >>>>>The consent framework will consist of white and black lists. There >>>>>will be no greylisting. A complete opt-out will be allowed by 'GIEIS'. >>>> >>>>The group's consent framework is what we are currently working on. >>> >>>Mark's Response: >>> >>>With all the self-interested posts that appear here with inaccurate >>>information, a coherent consent framework is highly unlikely to develop. >> >>We are chartered to created such framework >>(http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html) and a draft is available. If you >>had been following the discussions for the last few days you would have >>seen that they are concentrated on that framework. If you do not wish to >>contribute to anything else than your own proposal, then create your own >>mailing list for its discussion and leave the group. This is what the >>author of the SPF proposal did. > > >Mark's Response: > >I have been following the discussion for the last few days. Frankly, I >have never seen so much nonsense posted in such a short period of >time. The 'consent framework' is a few hours worth of work at most and >full of things that are already known or done, how long did it take the >group to develop this?? Since its creation??? Nevertheless its what we are chartered to do. If you think its a bunch of non-sense then either start commenting on specific parts or LEAVE. We were chartered by the IRTF to create it and that's what we are doing. The IMPP WG also started with a model so its not an uncommon practice to start of with an abstract model and then go on to specific solutions. >It is not in the financial interests of this group to develop a solution >as it would put the majority of posters and their associated firms >completely out of business. Thus, to anyone with any knowledge of the >subject, it is very clear when people run around in circles deliberatly to >prevent solutions from being developed. This is a daily occurance at the Asrg. There are many people present in the group that do not have financial interests involved. Do not draw conclusions. >>Additionally, this is a technical forum not a Madison Avenue marketing >>firm. We are not interested in your marketing materials, or promises of >>salvation from porn and spam. We are looking at technical details only >>and do not wish to be informed of "how many jobs" your proposal will >>create or how much money it will make. > > >Mark's Response: > >So, this is what you call a technical forum?? Hardly any of you could >understand the 'GIEIS' system until big daigrams appeared. Furthermore, >the issue lies solely at the SMTP protocol and the existing architecture >of the Internet. Nowhere else. It can never be fixed unless 'GIEIS' is >implemented. We understood your proposal the first time. Its just that no one bothered to analyze it until it got too annoying. IN YOUR OPINION, if the ultimate solution for spam has already been developed (GIEIS) why bother having this group? Why not disband the group and start implementing GIEIS? This group wants to look at all the proposals not just yours, so why don't you create a separate mailing list for your project while giving us the time to look at everything else? Since we are "lost souls" already since we do not want to accept GIEIS due to "conflicts of interest" why stay here? OR is it because you want to gain the authority granted by the IRTF? The IRTF DOES NOT HAVE POWER to develop standards, the IETF does. If you wish your system to be standardized then write an Internet Draft and submit it to the RFC Editor. Individuals have full power to do so without being affiliated with specific groups. >The 'frameworks' and 'solutions' that have appeared in this forum defy >even common sense at times, let alone technical reasoning. If you want a >forum were businesses prevent the development of solutions, the the Asrg >is becoming very close to it. Almost everyone, including the current >chair, has open conflicts of interest in regards to the issue of spam. There are over 800 people on the list, many of which have no connection to spam and no conflicts. Do not draw conclusions from a small sample. >In the past, Internet architecture has been an open affair for all to >contribute too. Due to the large sums of money now involved this practice >will most likely be discontinued due to the conflicts of interest present. > >Honestly, do you really think no one would notice that 99% of postings >made to this group are junk designed to keep the issue going?? Speak for yourself. Although this group has its problems, the IRTF and IAB are aware of them, and trying to fix them. ------- ".... when suddenly a White Rabbit with pink eyes ran close by her .... but when the Rabbit actually took a watch out of its waistcoat-pocket, and looked at it, and then hurried on, Alice started to her feet, for it flashed across her mind that she had never before seen a rabbit with either a waistcoat-pocket, or a watch to take out of it, and burning with curiosity, she ran across the field after it, and fortunately was just in time to see it pop down a large rabbit-hole under the hedge. In another moment down went Alice after it, never once considering how in the world she was to get out again. The rabbit-hole went straight on like a tunnel for some way, and then dipped suddenly down, so suddenly that Alice had not a moment to think about stopping herself before she found herself falling down a very deep well ....." -------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 6 12:08:34 2003 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 MAA16358 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 12:08:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZC3c-0001V8-50 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:08:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66G88I7005764 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 12:08:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZC3c-0001Ut-1X for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:08:08 -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 MAA16346; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 12:08:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZC3a-0003KC-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:08:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZC3a-0003K9-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:08:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZC3V-0001Sv-LG; Sun, 06 Jul 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 19ZC2a-0001Ej-RV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:07:04 -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 MAA16338 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 12:07:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZC2Z-0003K4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:07:03 -0400 Received: from bay8-f58.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.58] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZC2Y-0003Jy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:07:02 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 09:06:32 -0700 Received: from 62.252.128.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:06:31 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.128.5] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: research@solidmatrix.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2003 16:06:32.0284 (UTC) FILETIME=[911909C0:01C343D8] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id MAA16339 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Jul 2003 16:06:31 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thankyou for your comments. This post relates to the 'GIEIS' system. =20 Please find my response in the body of the message below. Version 0.005 - Updated 6th July 2003 GIEIS - Global ISP Email Identity System - The Ultimate Anti-Spam System a.k.a. - The Digital Reaper =A9 Including intellectual copyright, Mark McCarron 2003, All rights rese= rved. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. >From: Yakov Shafranovich >To: "Mark McCarron" ,asrg@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis >Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:43:57 -0400 > >At 03:08 PM 7/6/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>.... >> >>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>To: "Mark McCarron" ,asrg@ietf.org >>>Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis >>>Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:02:05 -0400 >>> >>>At 03:47 AM 7/6/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>>>... >>>>> >>>>>>>4. Participate in defining the consent framework. >>>>>> >>>>>>Mark's Response: >>>>>> >>>>>>The consent framework will consist of white and black lists. There= =20 >>>>>>will be no greylisting. A complete opt-out will be allowed by=20 >>>>>>'GIEIS'. >>>>> >>>>>The group's consent framework is what we are currently working on. >>>> >>>>Mark's Response: >>>> >>>>With all the self-interested posts that appear here with inaccurate=20 >>>>information, a coherent consent framework is highly unlikely to devel= op. >>> >>>We are chartered to created such framework=20 >>>(http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html) and a draft is available. If = you=20 >>>had been following the discussions for the last few days you would hav= e=20 >>>seen that they are concentrated on that framework. If you do not wish = to=20 >>>contribute to anything else than your own proposal, then create your o= wn=20 >>>mailing list for its discussion and leave the group. This is what the=20 >>>author of the SPF proposal did. >> >> >>Mark's Response: >> >>I have been following the discussion for the last few days. Frankly, I= =20 >>have never seen so much nonsense posted in such a short period of time.= =20 >>The 'consent framework' is a few hours worth of work at most and full o= f=20 >>things that are already known or done, how long did it take the group t= o=20 >>develop this?? Since its creation??? > >Nevertheless its what we are chartered to do. If you think its a bunch o= f=20 >non-sense then either start commenting on specific parts or LEAVE. We we= re=20 >chartered by the IRTF to create it and that's what we are doing. The IMP= P=20 >WG also started with a model so its not an uncommon practice to start of= =20 >with an abstract model and then go on to specific solutions. Mark's Response: This issue has been well defined and the problem understood. The 'Asrg' = is =20 just going around in circles. I will start commenting on the proposals, = in=20 fact, every last one. I'll soon remove the nonsense that appears here. > >>It is not in the financial interests of this group to develop a solutio= n=20 >>as it would put the majority of posters and their associated firms=20 >>completely out of business. Thus, to anyone with any knowledge of the=20 >>subject, it is very clear when people run around in circles deliberatly= to=20 >>prevent solutions from being developed. This is a daily occurance at t= he=20 >>Asrg. > >There are many people present in the group that do not have financial=20 >interests involved. Do not draw conclusions. Mark's Response: I am drawing conclusions based on what has been posted to this group not = on=20 those remaining silent. > > > >>>Additionally, this is a technical forum not a Madison Avenue marketing= =20 >>>firm. We are not interested in your marketing materials, or promises o= f=20 >>>salvation from porn and spam. We are looking at technical details only= =20 >>>and do not wish to be informed of "how many jobs" your proposal will=20 >>>create or how much money it will make. >> >> >>Mark's Response: >> >>So, this is what you call a technical forum?? Hardly any of you could=20 >>understand the 'GIEIS' system until big daigrams appeared. Furthermore= ,=20 >>the issue lies solely at the SMTP protocol and the existing architectur= e=20 >>of the Internet. Nowhere else. It can never be fixed unless 'GIEIS' i= s=20 >>implemented. > >We understood your proposal the first time. Its just that no one bothere= d=20 >to analyze it until it got too annoying. IN YOUR OPINION, if the ultimat= e=20 >solution for spam has already been developed (GIEIS) why bother having t= his=20 >group? Why not disband the group and start implementing GIEIS? This grou= p=20 >wants to look at all the proposals not just yours, so why don't you crea= te=20 >a separate mailing list for your project while giving us the time to loo= k=20 >at everything else? Since we are "lost souls" already since we do not wa= nt=20 >to accept GIEIS due to "conflicts of interest" why stay here? OR is it=20 >because you want to gain the authority granted by the IRTF? The IRTF DOE= S=20 >NOT HAVE POWER to develop standards, the IETF does. If you wish your sys= tem=20 >to be standardized then write an Internet Draft and submit it to the RFC= =20 >Editor. Individuals have full power to do so without being affiliated wi= th=20 >specific groups. Mark's Response: No, you could barely grasp it a few posts ago. In fact, I have corrected= =20 you enough times on the matter. I would be happy to let this group discu= ss=20 all the proposals it wants to provided they are legitimate proposals. Mo= st=20 of the 'technical posts' have contained either nonsense or things that ca= n=20 be bypassed. Other than 'GIEIS', there are no proposals even worth=20 considering as EVERYTHING else can be bypassed. I am not here just to=20 inform you of 'GIEIS' but to point out the fact that it can't be solved i= n=20 any other fashion. Please post your solutions and I will demonstrate thi= s=20 for EVERY single one. > > >>The 'frameworks' and 'solutions' that have appeared in this forum defy=20 >>even common sense at times, let alone technical reasoning. If you want= a=20 >>forum were businesses prevent the development of solutions, the the Asr= g=20 >>is becoming very close to it. Almost everyone, including the current=20 >>chair, has open conflicts of interest in regards to the issue of spam. > >There are over 800 people on the list, many of which have no connection = to=20 >spam and no conflicts. Do not draw conclusions from a small sample. Mark's Response: I am drawing my conclusions based upon what I seen and read here only. > >>In the past, Internet architecture has been an open affair for all to=20 >>contribute too. Due to the large sums of money now involved this pract= ice=20 >>will most likely be discontinued due to the conflicts of interest prese= nt. >> >>Honestly, do you really think no one would notice that 99% of postings=20 >>made to this group are junk designed to keep the issue going?? > >Speak for yourself. Although this group has its problems, the IRTF and I= AB=20 >are aware of them, and trying to fix them. Mark's Response: How long have these 'problems' been present for? 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 Sun Jul 6 12:11:35 2003 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 MAA16420 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 12:11:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZC6X-0001eo-Ha for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:11:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66GB9XF006366 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 12:11:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZC6X-0001eb-El for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:11:09 -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 MAA16395; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 12:11:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZC6W-0003Km-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:11:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZC6V-0003Kj-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:11:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZC6P-0001bK-GN; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:11:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZC5r-0001au-Mb for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:10:27 -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 MAA16385 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 12:10:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZC5q-0003Kb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:10:26 -0400 Received: from 000-244-249.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.193.156] helo=68.27.193.156) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZC5l-0003KY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:10:24 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030706120904.00ba24f0@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] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis 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, 06 Jul 2003 12:10:03 -0400 At 04:06 PM 7/6/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >... > >>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>To: "Mark McCarron" ,asrg@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis >>Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:43:57 -0400 >> >>At 03:08 PM 7/6/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>>.... >>> >>>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>>To: "Mark McCarron" ,asrg@ietf.org >>>>Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis >>>>Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:02:05 -0400 >>>> >>>>At 03:47 AM 7/6/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>>>>... >>>>>> >>>>>>>>4. Participate in defining the consent framework. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Mark's Response: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The consent framework will consist of white and black lists. There >>>>>>>will be no greylisting. A complete opt-out will be allowed by 'GIEIS'. >>>>>> >>>>>>The group's consent framework is what we are currently working on. >>>>> >>>>>Mark's Response: >>>>> >>>>>With all the self-interested posts that appear here with inaccurate >>>>>information, a coherent consent framework is highly unlikely to develop. >>>> >>>>We are chartered to created such framework >>>>(http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html) and a draft is available. If >>>>you had been following the discussions for the last few days you would >>>>have seen that they are concentrated on that framework. If you do not >>>>wish to contribute to anything else than your own proposal, then create >>>>your own mailing list for its discussion and leave the group. This is >>>>what the author of the SPF proposal did. >>> >>> >>>Mark's Response: >>> >>>I have been following the discussion for the last few days. Frankly, I >>>have never seen so much nonsense posted in such a short period of time. >>>The 'consent framework' is a few hours worth of work at most and full of >>>things that are already known or done, how long did it take the group to >>>develop this?? Since its creation??? >> >>Nevertheless its what we are chartered to do. If you think its a bunch of >>non-sense then either start commenting on specific parts or LEAVE. We >>were chartered by the IRTF to create it and that's what we are doing. The >>IMPP WG also started with a model so its not an uncommon practice to >>start of with an abstract model and then go on to specific solutions. > >Mark's Response: > >This issue has been well defined and the problem understood. The 'Asrg' is >just going around in circles. I will start commenting on the proposals, >in fact, every last one. I'll soon remove the nonsense that appears here. We will be awaiting that. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 6 12:20:32 2003 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 MAA16616 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 12:20:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZCFC-00026t-4h for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:20:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66GK6ig008047 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 12:20:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZCFB-00025i-QF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:20:05 -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 MAA16593; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 12:20:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZCFA-0003Ov-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:20:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZCF9-0003Os-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:20:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZCF7-00023g-Ez; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:20:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZCEu-00022w-4s for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:19:48 -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 MAA16582 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 12:19:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZCEs-0003Oe-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:19:46 -0400 Received: from bay8-f20.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.20] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZCEs-0003O6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:19:46 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 09:19:15 -0700 Received: from 62.252.224.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:19:15 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.224.5] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: research@solidmatrix.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2003 16:19:15.0677 (UTC) FILETIME=[581D90D0:01C343DA] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Jul 2003 16:19:15 +0000 >From: Yakov Shafranovich >To: "Mark McCarron" ,asrg@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis >Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:10:03 -0400 > >At 04:06 PM 7/6/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>... >> >>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>To: "Mark McCarron" ,asrg@ietf.org >>>Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis >>>Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:43:57 -0400 >>> >>>At 03:08 PM 7/6/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>>>.... >>>> >>>>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>>>To: "Mark McCarron" ,asrg@ietf.org >>>>>Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis >>>>>Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:02:05 -0400 >>>>> >>>>>At 03:47 AM 7/6/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>>>>>... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>4. Participate in defining the consent framework. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Mark's Response: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The consent framework will consist of white and black lists. There >>>>>>>>will be no greylisting. A complete opt-out will be allowed by >>>>>>>>'GIEIS'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The group's consent framework is what we are currently working on. >>>>>> >>>>>>Mark's Response: >>>>>> >>>>>>With all the self-interested posts that appear here with inaccurate >>>>>>information, a coherent consent framework is highly unlikely to >>>>>>develop. >>>>> >>>>>We are chartered to created such framework >>>>>(http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html) and a draft is available. If >>>>>you had been following the discussions for the last few days you would >>>>>have seen that they are concentrated on that framework. If you do not >>>>>wish to contribute to anything else than your own proposal, then create >>>>>your own mailing list for its discussion and leave the group. This is >>>>>what the author of the SPF proposal did. >>>> >>>> >>>>Mark's Response: >>>> >>>>I have been following the discussion for the last few days. Frankly, I >>>>have never seen so much nonsense posted in such a short period of time. >>>>The 'consent framework' is a few hours worth of work at most and full of >>>>things that are already known or done, how long did it take the group to >>>>develop this?? Since its creation??? >>> >>>Nevertheless its what we are chartered to do. If you think its a bunch of >>>non-sense then either start commenting on specific parts or LEAVE. We >>>were chartered by the IRTF to create it and that's what we are doing. The >>>IMPP WG also started with a model so its not an uncommon practice to >>>start of with an abstract model and then go on to specific solutions. >> >>Mark's Response: >> >>This issue has been well defined and the problem understood. The 'Asrg' >>is >>just going around in circles. I will start commenting on the proposals, >>in fact, every last one. I'll soon remove the nonsense that appears here. > >We will be awaiting that. > Mark's Response: Good. Looking forward to it! Mark McCarron. _________________________________________________________________ Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you. http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 6 12:31:30 2003 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 MAA16711 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 12:31:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZCPo-0002L8-UH for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:31:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66GV4Cg008988 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 12:31:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZCPo-0002Kt-Q6 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:31:04 -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 MAA16698; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 12:31:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZCPn-0003Qt-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:31:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZCPm-0003Qq-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:31:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZCPl-0002Im-8e; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:31:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZCPW-0002HZ-7N for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 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 MAA16695 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 12:30:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZCPU-0003Qn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:30:44 -0400 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZCPT-0003Qk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:30:44 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h66GUh2Q022338; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 09:30:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 09:30:43 -0700 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D22D9@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Mark McCarron'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis 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, 6 Jul 2003 09:30:43 -0700 > 'GIEIS' is well legally protected. Just because the system > is discussed > here, does not mean it gives away any rights. You are rasing the system for discussion, in doing so you are agreeing to be bound by the IPR conditions of the forum. If you do not want to relinquish the rights to the scheme I suggest you take competent legal advice before you discuss it here. A Google search on the term "intellectual copyright" does not produce any meaningful definition, though it does link to a lot of pages of cranks. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 6 12:42:30 2003 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 MAA17047 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 12:42:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZCaS-0002zQ-Gf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:42:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66Gg4Iq011486 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 12:42:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZCaS-0002zB-DJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:42:04 -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 MAA17043; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 12:41:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZCaQ-0003WU-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:42:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZCaQ-0003WR-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:42:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZCaP-0002xI-Kc; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:42:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZCZf-0002wn-7n for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:41:15 -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 MAA17020 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 12:41:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZCZd-0003WD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:41:13 -0400 Received: from mxsmta02.inithost.com ([209.235.30.104] helo=mxsmta02.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZCZd-0003WA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:41:13 -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 <20030706163906.VQKD7659.mxsmta02.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 12:39:06 -0400 Message-ID: <3F085124.4010100@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: pbaker@verisign.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis 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 MAA17021 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Jul 2003 12:41:08 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable God this is becoming silly. Now he is predicting 2.26 million jobs=20 created by his system to just send email? It really is time to get this=20 trite baloney off of the group.I doubt many people believe it... Mark McCarron wrote: > This post relates to the 'GIEIS' system. The release version is 0.005=20 > and details job creations of up to 2.26 Million. The 'GIEIS' system=20 > can be viewed here: > > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis > > > Mark McCarron. > > >> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" >> To: "'Mark McCarron'" , =20 >> "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org >> Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis >> Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 06:19:42 -0700 >> >> > This post relates to the 'GIEIS' system >> >> This one does not. >> >> >> > =A9 Including intellectual copyright, Mark McCarron 2003, All >> > rights reserved >> >> By posting in this forum you are agreeing to abide by the IRTF >> IPR policy (such as it is). There is no such thing as intellectual >> copyright. >> >> If you do not want to accept the IPR policy of the group then >> stop posting here. > > > > Mark's Response: > > 'GIEIS' is well legally protected. Just because the system is=20 > discussed here, does not mean it gives away any rights. Just because=20 > you can talk about MS Outlook Express does not mean you own it or can=20 > use any of its features. > > Also, I think you are more worried that 'GIEIS will result in the=20 > closure of Verisign as its services would be completely redundant. > > >> >> > Trying to impose their values ond legal systems on other >> > countries has been >> > a favorite with these two, however, as yet, unsucessful. >> > Many claims are >> > made but none have been upheld. >> >> Ex-President Noriega of Panama is in jail in Florida as a result of=20 >> an extra >> teritorial judgement. > > > > Mark's Response: > > Yes, and the US is also holding about 600 in a 'legal blackhole',=20 > doesn't make it legal to the rest of the world. > > > >> >> >I am aware of these type of scenarios, however, the simplist=20 >> solution is to >> >> >avoid the country in question. Nothing can be done about that. >> >> The simplest solution would be to avoid GIEIS and anyone promoting=20 >> similar >> schemes. >> >> > This was due to violations of International law, quite different. >> >> The extrateritorial application of national law *is* International law. > > > > Mark's Response: > > No, International law is quite seperate from National law. They do,=20 > however, have similar laws. Also, I don't see any country in the=20 > world obtaining an extradition warrant for a port scan. > > > Mark McCarron > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis > > _________________________________________________________________ > On the move? Get Hotmail on your mobile phone=20 > 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 Sun Jul 6 13:08:32 2003 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 NAA17336 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:08:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZCze-0003fW-TA for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:08:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66H864B014096 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:08:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZCze-0003fH-Q0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:08:06 -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 NAA17321; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:08:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZCzc-0003b8-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:08:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZCzc-0003b5-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:08:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZCzZ-0003cH-SO; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:08:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZCzT-0003c6-5P for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:07:55 -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 NAA17317 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:07:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZCzR-0003b1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:07:53 -0400 Received: from bay8-f93.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.93] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZCzQ-0003ay-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:07:52 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 10:07:22 -0700 Received: from 62.252.224.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:07:22 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.224.5] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. - Spam Characterization - Possible Measurements Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2003 17:07:22.0480 (UTC) FILETIME=[10C8BF00:01C343E1] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id NAA17318 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Jul 2003 17:07:22 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My responses are in the body of the message below. Version 0.005 - Updated 6th July 2003 GIEIS - Global ISP Email Identity System - The Ultimate Anti-Spam System a.k.a. - The Digital Reaper =A9 Including intellectual copyright, Mark McCarron 2003, All rights rese= rved. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. > >Message: 1 >From: Paul Judge >To: "'Dave Crocker'" , > Paul Judge > >Cc: "'Barry Shein'" , > "'Yakov Shafranovich'" > , > "'asrg@ietf.org'" >Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. - Spam Characterization - Possible Measurements (= wa > s : RE: Two ways to look at spam) >Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 18:13:28 -0400 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com] > > Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 12:09 PM > > To: Paul Judge > > Cc: 'Barry Shein'; 'Yakov Shafranovich'; 'asrg@ietf.org' > > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. - Spam Characterization - Possible > > Measurements (was : RE: Two ways to look at spam) > > > > > > Paul, > > > > Permit me to ask a difficult question: > > > > > > PJ> Here is a list of characteristics that I'd put together. > > > > Why? > >There are many reasons why one would want to understand characteristics = of=20 >a >problem as a fundamental step towards attempting to solve that problem. > > > Essentially all of the characteristics that you have listed > > are no better than second-order. That is, they are not key > > characteristics to spam, but rather they are characteristics > > of some spam today. > >Spam measurement and characterization should not be confused with the >inventory of problems list. Spam characterization seeks to understand th= e >current state of the problem (read symptoms). The inventory of problems=20 >list >seeks to look at the reason for the problem or the core attributes that >allow the actions taken by spammers that result in these symptoms. > > > Let's say that a sender of spam changed their operation, so > > that they committed none of the sins, and showed none of the > > characteristics, that you listed. Could they still send spam? > > I believe the answer is yes. > >Perhaps some incorrect assumptions were made about why these=20 >characteristics >are important. > >Your question above also assumes that spammers can change their operatio= n=20 >to >avoid exhibiting ALL of these characteristics. I believe that to not be >accurate. > >Secondly, your question asks if they could still SEND spam. In some case= s, >our goal is not to stop them from sending spam, but just to be able to >DETECT the spam. Now, the question should be 'Will we be able to detect >and/or prevent the spam?' > >The two questions underneath all of this are: 1) Is this characteristic = an >effective indicator of spam? And 2) Can they change the characteristic? > >There are four possible situations, but three that matter: > >Question 1: Yes. Question 2: Yes. >Means: Valid indicator now, but not necessarily in the future. >A number of these characteristics provide a good indication of spam >messages. Even though spammers are able to change some of these >characteristics: some of it changes and some of it does not. Either way, >currently they provide effective means of spam detection. Also, realizin= g >that these characteristics evolve, the good spam detection systems have >also. See any heuristics-based spam detection system for reference.=20 >Problems >arise when a system creator mistakenly assumes that one of these >characteristics can not change. > >Question 1: Yes. Question 2: No. >Means: Valid indicator now and moving forward: >This provide a good point of focus for new proposals. One quick example = of >such a characteristic is the call-for-action. Most (not all) spam messag= es >include and must continue to include some call-for-action. There are of >course exceptions such as spam sent for the sake of sending and the >possibility of brand awareness spam that does not directly attempt to se= ll >anything. > >Question 1: No. >Means: Not a valid indicator now: >Some of these characteristics do not provide a strong enough indication; >therefore we should not focus on detecting or preventing those. Such a >measurement study could make a strong statement about the usefulness of >certain paths that are being considered. > > > Otherwise, all that you are doing is focusing on side-effects. > Mark's Response: This area has been well defined any amount of times. This is going back = to=20 the start again. Mark McCarron. _________________________________________________________________ Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you.=20 http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 6 13:09:28 2003 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 NAA17383 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:09:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD0Y-0003nV-Rc for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:09:02 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66H92j9014594 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:09:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD0Y-0003nJ-Ow for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:09:02 -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 NAA17356; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:08:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD0W-0003bU-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:09:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD0W-0003bR-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:09:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD0X-0003kI-D2; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:09:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD00-0003fa-T9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:08:28 -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 NAA17330 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:08:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZCzy-0003bF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:08:26 -0400 Received: from bay8-f51.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.51] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZCzy-0003b4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:08:26 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 10:07:55 -0700 Received: from 62.252.224.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:07:55 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.224.5] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. - Spam Characterization - Possible Measurements Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2003 17:07:55.0818 (UTC) FILETIME=[24A7B8A0:01C343E1] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id NAA17333 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Jul 2003 17:07:55 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My responses are in the body of the message below. Version 0.005 - Updated 6th July 2003 GIEIS - Global ISP Email Identity System - The Ultimate Anti-Spam System a.k.a. - The Digital Reaper =A9 Including intellectual copyright, Mark McCarron 2003, All rights rese= rved. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. >--__--__-- > >Message: 4 >From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" >To: "'Paul Judge'" , > "'Dave Crocker'" > >Cc: "'Barry Shein'" , > "'Yakov Shafranovich'" > , > "'asrg@ietf.org'" >Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. - Spam Characterization - Possible Measurements (= wa > s : RE: Two ways to look at spam) >Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 19:08:36 -0700 > >I think it might be unreasonable to expect a particularly accurate >measurement of spam characteristics. There are a lot of potential biases= in >any sample that is constructed. > >However I think we could hope to create a series of measurements that sh= ow >long term trends in various characteristics. So while a measurement of t= he >proportion of spam that is 419 scams is going to be heavily biased by th= e >means used for measurement a series of measurements taken in the same wa= y >could provide highly accurate trending. > >I think it will be very useful to have measurements that allow the >effectiveness of anti-spam measures to be judged as they are implemented. > Mark's Response: Another post designed to go round in circles. This has been covered SOOO= OO=20 many times. Move on. 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 Sun Jul 6 13:10:28 2003 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 NAA17426 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:10:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD1W-0003ud-St for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:10:02 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66HA2pX015035 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:10:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD1W-0003uQ-Q8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:10:02 -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 NAA17408; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:09:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD1U-0003c7-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:10:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD1U-0003c4-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:10:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD1V-0003rN-Bz; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:10:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD17-0003qr-C3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:09:37 -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 NAA17399 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:09:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD15-0003bu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:09:35 -0400 Received: from bay8-f76.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.76] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD14-0003bY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:09:34 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 10:09:04 -0700 Received: from 62.252.224.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:09:04 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.224.5] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2003 17:09:04.0600 (UTC) FILETIME=[4DA70580:01C343E1] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id NAA17400 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Jul 2003 17:09:04 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My responses are in the body of the message below. Version 0.005 - Updated 6th July 2003 GIEIS - Global ISP Email Identity System - The Ultimate Anti-Spam System a.k.a. - The Digital Reaper =A9 Including intellectual copyright, Mark McCarron 2003, All rights rese= rved. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. > >Message: 15 >Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 05:02:02 +0000 >From: "Steven G. Willis" >Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis >To: asrg@ietf.org > >On 07/06/2003 at 00:02 it was written: > > >At 03:47 AM 7/6/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron continued his neverending=20 >babble: > >Please, can not someone finally get rid of this individual once and for=20 >all? > >The total lack of understanding on the part of Mr. McCarron, and his=20 >continued abuse of the resources of this list, should be clear enough ev= en=20 >to the most discerning of standards. > Mark Response: My lack of understanding, now there is a bold statement. Please show us=20 your understanding capabilites and demonstrate how to bypass 'GIEIS'!!!! Mark McCarron. _________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger=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 Sun Jul 6 13:11:35 2003 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 NAA17457 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:11:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD2b-00041p-KM for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:11:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66HB981015481 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:11:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD2b-00041c-Hc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:11:09 -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 NAA17452; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:11:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD2Z-0003cd-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:11:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD2Z-0003ca-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:11:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD2T-0003yV-7U; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:11:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD1t-0003w8-Fy for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:10:25 -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 NAA17421 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:10:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD1r-0003cJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:10:23 -0400 Received: from bay8-f40.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.40] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD1q-0003bx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:10:23 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 10:09:52 -0700 Received: from 62.252.224.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:09:52 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.224.5] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] ::: G_I/E.I_-S - Moving Forward - srrrrppp Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2003 17:09:52.0622 (UTC) FILETIME=[6A4698E0:01C343E1] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id NAA17422 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Jul 2003 17:09:52 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My responses are in the body of the message below. Version 0.005 - Updated 6th July 2003 GIEIS - Global ISP Email Identity System - The Ultimate Anti-Spam System a.k.a. - The Digital Reaper =A9 Including intellectual copyright, Mark McCarron 2003, All rights rese= rved. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. >--__--__-- > >Message: 16 >From: gieisclownfanclub@inbox.lv >Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 10:05:44 +0300 >To: asrg@ietf.org >Subject: [Asrg] ::: G_I/E.I_-S - Moving Forward - srrrrppp > >All, > > Despite the negativity about G1EIS on this list, a small group of us, >visionaries and egyptologues for the most part, have seen the Light and=20 >have >recognized the Hand of Genius. Mark's Response: About time. > We think this list with its interminable criticisms is simply wasting=20 >Mark's >Precious Time which should instead be dedicated on building GlElS with t= he >100's of ISPs who are salivating and waiting, money in hand, to be among= =20 >the >First Chosen Ones to Deploy. While on the funding topic, we have not bee= n=20 >able >to confirm yet the rumor that, after reading Mark's response to his WSJ=20 >letter, >Bill, Himself, has offered a very large funding, sans condition. Mark's Response: 'GIEIS' would generate in excess of =A350 Billion per year, also it would= =20 employ around 2.26 million people. 'GIEIS' will pay back, with commercia= l=20 interest rates, all sums used to establish the service. Furthermore, the= re=20 are extensive long-term benefits for partnering with 'GIEIS' to establish= =20 it. > >Anyhow, we advise the members of the ASRG list TO STOP SENDING COMMENTS = to=20 >Mark >who should not be distracted from His Work. Don't slow down the GI3IZ >unescapable future! On to Version 0.00000000013 in the next couple hours= ! > Mark's Response: At least someone is curious as to how I manage to update the system every= 48=20 hours or so, but, I am not going to tell just yet.:) >- The GIE|Z CFC - > >p.s. Our apologies for altering the acronym of The System in this modest >contribution but we suspect that there is an ongoing conspiracy among a=20 >number >of anti-spam vendors reading this list. It is possible they were already= =20 >behind >the initial attempt at blocking His Website. Thanks God, that failed but= we >need to remain vigilant: there is a chance that they have started to add= =20 >the >real acronym of The System to their=20 >soon-to-be-obsoleted-by-The-System-anti- >spam-filters. Thus we conservatively opted for the use of somewhat spamm= y=20 >but >more filter-proof spellings of The System's acronym. > >Copyright (c) The Anonymously Lame GCFC - 2oo3 - All rights (to pile it=20 >high) >reserved - Mark's Response: It will be piled directly on top of those anti-spam solutions that you=20 mentioned! Mark McCarron. _________________________________________________________________ Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you.=20 http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 6 13:12:29 2003 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 NAA17493 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:12:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD3U-00047h-7U for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:12:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66HC4Yw015845 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:12:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD3U-00047U-3h for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:12:04 -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 NAA17486; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:11:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD3S-0003dE-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:12:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD3R-0003dB-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:12:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD3Q-00045d-UF; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:12:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD3L-00045I-Qt for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:11:55 -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 NAA17479 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:11:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD3J-0003cr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:11:53 -0400 Received: from bay8-f40.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.40] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD3J-0003ci-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:11:53 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 10:11:22 -0700 Received: from 62.252.224.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:11:22 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.224.5] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2003 17:11:22.0810 (UTC) FILETIME=[A00831A0:01C343E1] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id NAA17480 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Jul 2003 17:11:22 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My responses are in the body of the message below. Version 0.005 - Updated 6th July 2003 GIEIS - Global ISP Email Identity System - The Ultimate Anti-Spam System a.k.a. - The Digital Reaper =A9 Including intellectual copyright, Mark McCarron 2003, All rights rese= rved. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. >From: "C. Wegrzyn" >To: Mark McCarron >CC: pbaker@verisign.com, asrg@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis >Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:41:08 -0400 > >God this is becoming silly. Now he is predicting 2.26 million jobs creat= ed=20 >by his system to just send email? It really is time to get this trite=20 >baloney off of the group.I doubt many people believe it... Mark's Response: The financial figures are at the homepage. If you find it hard to=20 'believe', then I would suggest using a calculator. Mark McCarron http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis _________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger=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 Sun Jul 6 13:13:27 2003 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 NAA17522 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:13:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD4Q-0004Ki-1Q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:13:02 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66HD2vY016650 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:13:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD4P-0004KT-UD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:13:01 -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 NAA17515; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:12:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD4N-0003df-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:13:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD4N-0003dc-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:12:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD4O-0004Dv-FR; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:13:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD43-0004C8-1Z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:12:39 -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 NAA17509 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:12:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD41-0003dS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:12:37 -0400 Received: from bay8-f113.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.113] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD40-0003dH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:12:36 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 10:10:48 -0700 Received: from 62.252.224.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:10:48 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.224.5] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2003 17:10:48.0585 (UTC) FILETIME=[8BA1DF90:01C343E1] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id NAA17510 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Jul 2003 17:10:48 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My responses are in the body of the message below. Version 0.005 - Updated 6th July 2003 GIEIS - Global ISP Email Identity System - The Ultimate Anti-Spam System a.k.a. - The Digital Reaper =A9 Including intellectual copyright, Mark McCarron 2003, All rights rese= rved. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. >From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" >To: "'Mark McCarron'" , "Hallam-Baker,=20 >Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org >Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis >Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 09:30:43 -0700 > > > > 'GIEIS' is well legally protected. Just because the system > > is discussed > > here, does not mean it gives away any rights. > >You are rasing the system for discussion, in doing so you are >agreeing to be bound by the IPR conditions of the forum. Mark's Response: As I stated before. Just because you discuss something does not mean you= =20 are given away rights. IPR conditions do not apply. I am here in my=20 personal capacity discribing 'GIEIS' only. > >If you do not want to relinquish the rights to the scheme I >suggest you take competent legal advice before you discuss >it here. Mark's Response: We already have. > >A Google search on the term "intellectual copyright" does not >produce any meaningful definition, though it does link to a >lot of pages of cranks. Mark's Response: No substitute for a good legal team. Mark McCarron. _________________________________________________________________ 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 Sun Jul 6 13:14:30 2003 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 NAA17551 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:14:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD5O-0004OW-E3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:14:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66HE2Gs016888 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:14:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD5O-0004OJ-Az for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:14:02 -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 NAA17544; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:13:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD5M-0003eM-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:14:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD5L-0003eJ-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:13:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD5M-0004LK-2f; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:14:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD4r-0004Ks-U9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:13:30 -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 NAA17520 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:13:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD4q-0003dx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:13:28 -0400 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD4p-0003db-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:13:27 -0400 Received: from BBFUJIP.brandenburg.com (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h66HGPF28608; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 10:16:25 -0700 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/11) Personal Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <10938235449.20030706191326@brandenburg.com> To: Paul Judge CC: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. - Spam Characterization - Possible Measurements (wa s : RE: Two ways to look at 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: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 19:13:26 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Paul, >> Essentially all of the characteristics that you have listed >> are no better than second-order. PJ> Spam measurement and characterization should not be confused with the PJ> inventory of problems list. Spam characterization seeks to understand the PJ> current state of the problem (read symptoms). To what end? What will be done with this characterization of "current" symptoms, especially when we know that spammers are highly adaptable and will change the symptoms, if they have to? PJ> The inventory of problems list PJ> seeks to look at the reason for the problem or the core attributes that PJ> allow the actions taken by spammers that result in these symptoms. As I said, most of the list did not appear to be core. Any arguments to the contrary -- for each item on the list -- could be quite insightful. PJ> Your question above also assumes that spammers can change their operation to PJ> avoid exhibiting ALL of these characteristics. I believe that to not be PJ> accurate. We have already seen considerable examples of adaptive behavior. For example, my first use of spammassassin was highly successful, some months ago. Now it is almost useless. (Yes, the ruleset needs to be updated, but that is exactly my point.) That's the first time I've seen such an assessment about the limitations of spammers. What is it that causes you to believe further adaptation is not likely or possible? PJ> Secondly, your question asks if they could still SEND spam. In some cases, PJ> our goal is not to stop them from sending spam, but just to be able to PJ> DETECT the spam. Forgive me for believing that detection of spam should seek to use criteria that are as persistent as we can make them. PJ> Now, the question should be 'Will we be able to detect PJ> and/or prevent the spam?' The question should be, "Will we be able to develop mechanisms that detect and/or prevent spam without requiring constant change over short periods of time." PJ> The two questions underneath all of this are: 1) Is this characteristic an PJ> effective indicator of spam? And 2) Can they change the characteristic? That is essentially what I originally asked, yes. PJ> There are four possible situations, but three that matter: PJ> Question 1: Yes. Question 2: Yes. ... PJ> characteristics: some of it changes and some of it does not. Either way, PJ> currently they provide effective means of spam detection. Given that there is a goal of producing standards, at some point, and that standards take a long time to produce and deploy, perhaps we should be extremely concerned about focusing on characteristics that have transient benefit? PJ> Problems arise when a system creator mistakenly assumes that one of PJ> these characteristics can not change. Problems with standards arise when they do not attend to their life cycle limitations. PJ> Question 1: Yes. Question 2: No. PJ> Means: Valid indicator now and moving forward: PJ> This provide a good point of focus for new proposals. It occurs to me that the line of analysis you are offering simply means that we should attend to whether a characteristic is "core" or whether it is merely a current indicator. I'd consider that a pretty reasonable re-statement of my original question, though I am not sure whether that is what you had in mind. 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 Sun Jul 6 13:16:28 2003 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 NAA17607 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:16:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD7L-0004Z2-I3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:16:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66HG3iX017538 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:16:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD7L-0004Yn-EK for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:16:03 -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 NAA17592; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:15:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD7J-0003et-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:16:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD7I-0003eq-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:16:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD7J-0004Si-Mw; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:16:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD6W-0004SO-Rl for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:15:12 -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 NAA17568 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:15:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD6V-0003ea-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:15:11 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD6U-0003eX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:15:10 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:14:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:02:15 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Mark McCarron'" Cc: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis 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, 6 Jul 2003 13:02:14 -0400 Mark, As I have explained to you previously off-list, the volume of your posts relative to the impact of them is disproportionate. The mailing list is currently focused on the work items. Your proposal has been made known to thr group. At this point, it would be more efficient to have detailed discussion of the GIEIS system take place off in a more focused forum consisting of interested individuals. Please set up a separate mailing list for detailed discussion of the GIEIS system. This has been done for other proposals such as SPF. Please focus on setting this up immediately rather than responding to individual responses on the ASRG mailing list. Once this list is set up, feel free to post the location to the ASRG mailing list for interested parties. Thanks, Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: C. Wegrzyn [mailto:wegrzyn@garbagedump.com] > Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 12:41 PM > To: Mark McCarron > Cc: pbaker@verisign.com; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis > > > God this is becoming silly. Now he is predicting 2.26 million jobs > created by his system to just send email? It really is time > to get this > trite baloney off of the group.I doubt many people believe it... > > Mark McCarron wrote: > > > This post relates to the 'GIEIS' system. The release > version is 0.005 > > and details job creations of up to 2.26 Million. The > 'GIEIS' system > > can be viewed here: > > > > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis > > > > > > Mark McCarron. > > > > > >> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > >> To: "'Mark McCarron'" , > >> "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org > >> Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis > >> Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 06:19:42 -0700 > >> > >> > This post relates to the 'GIEIS' system > >> > >> This one does not. > >> > >> > >> > (c) Including intellectual copyright, Mark McCarron 2003, > All rights > >> > reserved > >> > >> By posting in this forum you are agreeing to abide by the IRTF IPR > >> policy (such as it is). There is no such thing as intellectual > >> copyright. > >> > >> If you do not want to accept the IPR policy of the group then stop > >> posting here. > > > > > > > > Mark's Response: > > > > 'GIEIS' is well legally protected. Just because the system is > > discussed here, does not mean it gives away any rights. > Just because > > you can talk about MS Outlook Express does not mean you own > it or can > > use any of its features. > > > > Also, I think you are more worried that 'GIEIS will result in the > > closure of Verisign as its services would be completely redundant. > > > > > >> > >> > Trying to impose their values ond legal systems on other > countries > >> > has been a favorite with these two, however, as yet, unsucessful. > >> > Many claims are > >> > made but none have been upheld. > >> > >> Ex-President Noriega of Panama is in jail in Florida as a result of > >> an extra > >> teritorial judgement. > > > > > > > > Mark's Response: > > > > Yes, and the US is also holding about 600 in a 'legal blackhole', > > doesn't make it legal to the rest of the world. > > > > > > > >> > >> >I am aware of these type of scenarios, however, the simplist > >> solution is to > >> > >> >avoid the country in question. Nothing can be done about that. > >> > >> The simplest solution would be to avoid GIEIS and anyone promoting > >> similar > >> schemes. > >> > >> > This was due to violations of International law, quite different. > >> > >> The extrateritorial application of national law *is* International > >> law. > > > > > > > > Mark's Response: > > > > No, International law is quite seperate from National law. They do, > > however, have similar laws. Also, I don't see any country in the > > world obtaining an extradition warrant for a port scan. > > > > > > Mark McCarron > > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > On the move? 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 6 13:17:26 2003 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 NAA17646 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:17:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD8H-0004fe-PK for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:17:01 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66HH13W017951 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:17:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD8H-0004fS-Mb for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:17:01 -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 NAA17637; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:16:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD8F-0003fT-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:16:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD8F-0003fP-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:16:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD8G-0004cK-Dp; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:17:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZD7j-0004ZO-L8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:16:27 -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 NAA17603 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:16:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD7h-0003f7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:16:25 -0400 Received: from law12-f126.law12.hotmail.com ([64.4.19.126] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZD7h-0003ej-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:16:25 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 10:15:54 -0700 Received: from 12.254.138.252 by lw12fd.law12.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:15:54 GMT X-Originating-IP: [12.254.138.252] X-Originating-Email: [pontifier@hotmail.com] From: "John Fenley" To: markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2003 17:15:54.0725 (UTC) FILETIME=[421B2150:01C343E2] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id NAA17604 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Jul 2003 11:15:54 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >From: "Mark McCarron" >Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:06:31 +0000 >From: "Mark McCarron" >Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:06:31 +0000 >No, you could barely grasp it a few posts ago. In fact, I have correcte= d=20 >you enough times on the matter. I would be happy to let this group disc= uss=20 >all the proposals it wants to provided they are legitimate proposals. M= ost=20 >of the 'technical posts' have contained either nonsense or things that c= an=20 >be bypassed. Other than 'GIEIS', there are no proposals even worth=20 >considering as EVERYTHING else can be bypassed. I am not here just to=20 >inform you of 'GIEIS' but to point out the fact that it can't be solved = in=20 >any other fashion. Please post your solutions and I will demonstrate th= is=20 >for EVERY single one. Firstly, you do not "let" this list do anything. You are not the moderato= r. (Note to Moderator: Where are you?) Secondly, You say that every other system can be bypassed. Please provide= a=20 comprehensive proof that all models that prevent spam and are not able to= be=20 bypassed must eventually arrive at the =93GIEIS=94 system. I would be interested to see a formal proof of this, though I doubt one i= s=20 possible with todays limited understanding of social dynamics. Thirdly, please deliver on your promise to analyze all solutions posted t= o=20 this list. Please find a flaw in Choicelist for me ok? Lastly, For the whole group: This blather with Mark McCarron gives me=20 another Idea for Choicelist. Off topic posters to mailing lists or news groups could be =93voted off=94= of=20 lists by subscribers. These people who are voted off, would not be able t= o=20 switch email addresses so easily. As the Identity would be blacklisted, n= ot=20 the address. This imposes a high cost to flame. More info on the complaint system: Because Choicelist provides an authentication framework, security is up t= o=20 the sender, and proof is automatically checked at the time of complaint,=20 only valid complaints can be made. The complainer must have actually=20 received a message from you in order to complain (or you didn=92t specify= an=20 authentication mechanism, or they broke your encryption). This limits the= =20 scope of false complaints. So at the least, Mr McCarron would have had to buy 4(approximate and risi= ng)=20 more Ids (or use 4 he already had sitting around). At the most, he would=20 have to wait 3 months to get a new Id sent to them via postal mail before= =20 flooding this list again. Though I doubt it is possible to stop a truly=20 dedicated Flamer with anything short of a true identity linked to the per= son=20 permanently that would be required to post to lists(or a moderator who=20 reviews posts and prevents this sort activity). So Choicelist may have flame retardant properties though I doubt it is fl= ame=20 proof. I hope that I am not as annoying as Mark, as it seem both of us are=20 promoting a system which we feel is a solution to the whole problem. John Fenley _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online =20 http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3D3963 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 6 13:26:31 2003 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 NAA17839 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:26:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZDH4-0004pW-Ix for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:26:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66HQ6wZ018560 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:26:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZDH4-0004pH-Eo for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:26:06 -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 NAA17824; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:26:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZDH2-0003ii-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:26:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZDH1-0003if-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:26:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZDGz-0004nP-Ed; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:26:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZDGC-0004ms-01 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:25:12 -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 NAA17821 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:25:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZDGA-0003iV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:25:10 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZDG9-0003iS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:25:09 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19ZDG9-00086B-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:25:09 +0100 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.7] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 82.69.7.27 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, 06 Jul 2003 18:25:09 +0100 > Version 0.005 - Updated 6th July 2003 Mark, there's been a great deal of preliminary discussion of your idea. Might I suggest that now is the time to write it up rather more formally? The usual format would be that of an Internet Draft. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 6 13:37:32 2003 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 NAA17960 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:37:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZDRh-00058P-3u for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:37:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66Hb5Sw019731 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:37:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZDRg-00058A-Sg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:37:04 -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 NAA17954; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:37:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZDRe-0003lQ-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:37:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZDRe-0003lN-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:37:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZDRd-00054P-EO; Sun, 06 Jul 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 19ZDQv-00051p-4V for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:36:17 -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 NAA17945 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:36:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZDQt-0003lE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:36:15 -0400 Received: from law12-f109.law12.hotmail.com ([64.4.19.109] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZDQs-0003ks-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:36:14 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 10:35:42 -0700 Received: from 12.254.138.252 by lw12fd.law12.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:35:42 GMT X-Originating-IP: [12.254.138.252] X-Originating-Email: [pontifier@hotmail.com] From: "John Fenley" To: markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2003 17:35:42.0631 (UTC) FILETIME=[06273370:01C343E5] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id NAA17946 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Jul 2003 11:35:42 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >From: "Mark McCarron" >Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:09:04 +0000 >>The total lack of understanding on the part of Mr. McCarron, and his=20 >>continued abuse of the resources of this list, should be clear enough e= ven=20 >>to the most discerning of standards. >> > >Mark Response: > >My lack of understanding, now there is a bold statement. Please show us= =20 >your understanding capabilites and demonstrate how to bypass 'GIEIS'!!!! Anyone who uses the GIEIS system to send mail can send spam. So, to bypass the system, I either sign up for it, or I take control of=20 someone=92s computer who is signed up for it, then I send as many spams a= s I=20 want...That's how to bypass th GIEIS system... This is the same drawback that every trusted sender system has, yet it ha= s=20 many more drawbacks...like total incompatibility with existing systems. John Fenley _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. =20 http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/featuredemail _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 6 14:46:39 2003 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 OAA19295 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 14:46:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZEWX-0007Cm-RL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 14:46:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66Ik92h027692 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 14:46:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZEWX-0007CZ-OI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 14:46:09 -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 OAA19290; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 14:46:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZEWU-00048Z-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 14:46:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZEWU-00048W-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 14:46:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZEWP-0007Ag-HK; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 14:46:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZEWL-0007AV-Rj for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 14:45:57 -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 OAA19287 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 14:45:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZEWJ-00048T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 14:45:55 -0400 Received: from bay8-f69.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.69] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZEWI-00048Q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 14:45:54 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 11:45:24 -0700 Received: from 213.104.228.217 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:45:24 GMT X-Originating-IP: [213.104.228.217] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: paul.judge@ciphertrust.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2003 18:45:24.0161 (UTC) FILETIME=[C28A0B10:01C343EE] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Jul 2003 18:45:24 +0000 As I explained to you off-list also, I am both free to post as often and reply to whom ever I want. The current 'work issues' have been nothing more than revised nonsense relating to matters that have already been extensivly 'defined'. Mark McCarron. >From: Paul Judge >To: 'Mark McCarron' >CC: "'asrg@ietf.org'" >Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis >Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:02:14 -0400 > >Mark, > >As I have explained to you previously off-list, the volume of your posts >relative to the impact of them is disproportionate. The mailing list is >currently focused on the work items. Your proposal has been made known to >thr group. At this point, it would be more efficient to have detailed >discussion of the GIEIS system take place off in a more focused forum >consisting of interested individuals. > >Please set up a separate mailing list for detailed discussion of the GIEIS >system. This has been done for other proposals such as SPF. Please focus on >setting this up immediately rather than responding to individual responses >on the ASRG mailing list. Once this list is set up, feel free to post the >location to the ASRG mailing list for interested parties. > >Thanks, >Paul > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: C. Wegrzyn [mailto:wegrzyn@garbagedump.com] > > Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 12:41 PM > > To: Mark McCarron > > Cc: pbaker@verisign.com; asrg@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis > > > > > > God this is becoming silly. Now he is predicting 2.26 million jobs > > created by his system to just send email? It really is time > > to get this > > trite baloney off of the group.I doubt many people believe it... > > > > Mark McCarron wrote: > > > > > This post relates to the 'GIEIS' system. The release > > version is 0.005 > > > and details job creations of up to 2.26 Million. The > > 'GIEIS' system > > > can be viewed here: > > > > > > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis > > > > > > > > > Mark McCarron. > > > > > > > > >> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > > >> To: "'Mark McCarron'" , > > >> "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org > > >> Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis > > >> Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 06:19:42 -0700 > > >> > > >> > This post relates to the 'GIEIS' system > > >> > > >> This one does not. > > >> > > >> > > >> > (c) Including intellectual copyright, Mark McCarron 2003, > > All rights > > >> > reserved > > >> > > >> By posting in this forum you are agreeing to abide by the IRTF IPR > > >> policy (such as it is). There is no such thing as intellectual > > >> copyright. > > >> > > >> If you do not want to accept the IPR policy of the group then stop > > >> posting here. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark's Response: > > > > > > 'GIEIS' is well legally protected. Just because the system is > > > discussed here, does not mean it gives away any rights. > > Just because > > > you can talk about MS Outlook Express does not mean you own > > it or can > > > use any of its features. > > > > > > Also, I think you are more worried that 'GIEIS will result in the > > > closure of Verisign as its services would be completely redundant. > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > Trying to impose their values ond legal systems on other > > countries > > >> > has been a favorite with these two, however, as yet, unsucessful. > > >> > Many claims are > > >> > made but none have been upheld. > > >> > > >> Ex-President Noriega of Panama is in jail in Florida as a result of > > >> an extra > > >> teritorial judgement. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark's Response: > > > > > > Yes, and the US is also holding about 600 in a 'legal blackhole', > > > doesn't make it legal to the rest of the world. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> >I am aware of these type of scenarios, however, the simplist > > >> solution is to > > >> > > >> >avoid the country in question. Nothing can be done about that. > > >> > > >> The simplest solution would be to avoid GIEIS and anyone promoting > > >> similar > > >> schemes. > > >> > > >> > This was due to violations of International law, quite different. > > >> > > >> The extrateritorial application of national law *is* International > > >> law. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark's Response: > > > > > > No, International law is quite seperate from National law. They do, > > > however, have similar laws. Also, I don't see any country in the > > > world obtaining an extradition warrant for a port scan. > > > > > > > > > Mark McCarron > > > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > On the move? 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 > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > _________________________________________________________________ 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 Sun Jul 6 14:57:31 2003 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 OAA19550 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 14:57:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZEh7-0007VX-AQ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 14:57:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66Iv5QF028853 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 14:57:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZEh7-0007VD-7G for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 14:57:05 -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 OAA19541; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 14:57:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZEh4-0004Dy-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 14:57:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZEh3-0004Dv-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 14:57:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZEh3-0007SK-GE; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 14:57:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZEgM-0007RW-0I for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 14:56:18 -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 OAA19533 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 14:56:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZEgJ-0004Dl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 14:56:15 -0400 Received: from bay8-f20.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.20] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZEgI-0004DQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 14:56:14 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 11:55:44 -0700 Received: from 213.104.228.217 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:55:44 GMT X-Originating-IP: [213.104.228.217] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: pontifier@hotmail.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2003 18:55:44.0480 (UTC) FILETIME=[34473600:01C343F0] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id OAA19534 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Jul 2003 18:55:44 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My responses are in the body of the message below. Version 0.005 - Updated 6th July 2003 GIEIS - Global ISP Email Identity System - The Ultimate Anti-Spam System a.k.a. - The Digital Reaper =A9 Including intellectual copyright, Mark McCarron 2003, All rights rese= rved. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. >From: "John Fenley" >To: markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com, asrg@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis >Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:15:54 -0600 > >>From: "Mark McCarron" >>Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:06:31 +0000 >>From: "Mark McCarron" >>Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:06:31 +0000 > >>No, you could barely grasp it a few posts ago. In fact, I have correct= ed=20 >>you enough times on the matter. I would be happy to let this group=20 >>discuss all the proposals it wants to provided they are legitimate=20 >>proposals. Most of the 'technical posts' have contained either nonsens= e=20 >>or things that can be bypassed. Other than 'GIEIS', there are no=20 >>proposals even worth considering as EVERYTHING else can be bypassed. I= am=20 >>not here just to inform you of 'GIEIS' but to point out the fact that i= t=20 >>can't be solved in any other fashion. Please post your solutions and I= =20 >>will demonstrate this for EVERY single one. > >Firstly, you do not "let" this list do anything. You are not the moderat= or. >(Note to Moderator: Where are you?) Mark's Response: Please keep that in mind the next time you ask me to setup a separate=20 mailing list.:) > >Secondly, You say that every other system can be bypassed. Please provid= e a=20 >comprehensive proof that all models that prevent spam and are not able t= o=20 >be bypassed must eventually arrive at the =93GIEIS=94 system. Mark's Response: Post your solutions then!! I'll completely prove it everytime. >I would be interested to see a formal proof of this, though I doubt one = is=20 >possible with todays limited understanding of social dynamics. > >Thirdly, please deliver on your promise to analyze all solutions posted = to=20 >this list. Please find a flaw in Choicelist for me ok? Mark's Response: Show me and I will. > >Lastly, For the whole group: This blather with Mark McCarron gives me=20 >another Idea for Choicelist. > >Off topic posters to mailing lists or news groups could be =93voted off=94= of=20 >lists by subscribers. These people who are voted off, would not be able = to=20 >switch email addresses so easily. As the Identity would be blacklisted, = not=20 >the address. This imposes a high cost to flame. Mark's Response: Is that to protect the interests of those businesses posting nonsense her= e? > >More info on the complaint system: >Because Choicelist provides an authentication framework, security is up = to=20 >the sender, and proof is automatically checked at the time of complaint,= =20 >only valid complaints can be made. The complainer must have actually=20 >received a message from you in order to complain (or you didn=92t specif= y an=20 >authentication mechanism, or they broke your encryption). This limits th= e=20 >scope of false complaints. > Mark's Response: I can see the holes already. >So at the least, Mr McCarron would have had to buy 4(approximate and=20 >rising) more Ids (or use 4 he already had sitting around). At the most, = he=20 >would have to wait 3 months to get a new Id sent to them via postal mail= =20 >before flooding this list again. Though I doubt it is possible to stop a= =20 >truly dedicated Flamer with anything short of a true identity linked to = the=20 >person permanently that would be required to post to lists(or a moderato= r=20 >who reviews posts and prevents this sort activity). Mark's Response: What sort of activity would that be?? Systems that work perhaps?? >So Choicelist may have flame retardant properties though I doubt it is=20 >flame proof. Mark's Response: So, it isn't as good as 'GIEIS' then. I only annoy you because I am righ= t. > >I hope that I am not as annoying as Mark, as it seem both of us are=20 >promoting a system which we feel is a solution to the whole problem. Mark's Response: Let me see this 'Choicelist', I love punching holes in software. Mark McCarron. _________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger=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 Sun Jul 6 14:59:28 2003 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 OAA19601 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 14:59:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZEj1-0007cw-6z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 14:59:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66Ix3Am029312 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 14:59:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZEj1-0007ch-3m for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 14:59:03 -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 OAA19583; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 14:58:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZEiy-0004Ed-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 14:59:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZEix-0004Ea-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 14:58:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZEiz-0007ZZ-5N; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 14:59:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZEiX-0007ZA-Mc for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 14:58:33 -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 OAA19572 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 14:58:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZEiU-0004EQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 14:58:30 -0400 Received: from bay8-f106.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.106] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZEiU-0004EF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 14:58:30 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 11:57:59 -0700 Received: from 213.104.228.217 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:57:59 GMT X-Originating-IP: [213.104.228.217] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: pontifier@hotmail.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2003 18:57:59.0975 (UTC) FILETIME=[850A1B70:01C343F0] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id OAA19573 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Jul 2003 18:57:59 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My responses are in the body of the message below. Version 0.005 - Updated 6th July 2003 GIEIS - Global ISP Email Identity System - The Ultimate Anti-Spam System a.k.a. - The Digital Reaper =A9 Including intellectual copyright, Mark McCarron 2003, All rights rese= rved. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. >From: "John Fenley" >To: markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com, asrg@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis >Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:35:42 -0600 > >>From: "Mark McCarron" >>Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:09:04 +0000 >>>The total lack of understanding on the part of Mr. McCarron, and his=20 >>>continued abuse of the resources of this list, should be clear enough=20 >>>even to the most discerning of standards. >>> >> >>Mark Response: >> >>My lack of understanding, now there is a bold statement. Please show u= s=20 >>your understanding capabilites and demonstrate how to bypass 'GIEIS'!!!= ! > >Anyone who uses the GIEIS system to send mail can send spam. >So, to bypass the system, I either sign up for it, or I take control of=20 >someone=92s computer who is signed up for it, then I send as many spams = as I=20 >want...That's how to bypass th GIEIS system... >This is the same drawback that every trusted sender system has, yet it h= as=20 >many more drawbacks...like total incompatibility with existing systems. > >John Fenley Mark's Response: No, that can't work, the 'EAS' would eliminate that. 'GIEIS' monitors al= l=20 connections in real-time. Try again. Mark McCarron. _________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger=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 Sun Jul 6 15:05:31 2003 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 PAA19900 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 15:05:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZEor-0007rN-Ki for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 15:05:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66J55I8030207 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 15:05:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZEor-0007r8-GX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 15:05:05 -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 PAA19850; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 15:05:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZEoo-0004Fj-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 15:05:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZEon-0004Fg-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 15:05:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZEon-0007o5-Nw; Sun, 06 Jul 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 19ZEnw-0007lo-3m for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 15:04:08 -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 PAA19759 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 15:04:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZEnt-0004FW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 15:04:05 -0400 Received: from law12-f31.law12.hotmail.com ([64.4.19.31] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZEns-0004FL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 15:04:04 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 12:03:33 -0700 Received: from 12.254.138.252 by lw12fd.law12.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 19:03:33 GMT X-Originating-IP: [12.254.138.252] X-Originating-Email: [pontifier@hotmail.com] From: "John Fenley" To: markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2003 19:03:33.0975 (UTC) FILETIME=[4C1E7670:01C343F1] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Jul 2003 13:03:33 -0600 You can see the Choicelist system at www.Choicelist.com, and in the archives of this list. 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 exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 6 16:14:46 2003 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 QAA21453 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 16:14:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZFts-000107-11 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:14:20 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66KEKnh003846 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 16:14:20 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZFtr-0000zx-RM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:14:19 -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 QAA21442; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 16:14:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZFtq-0004R3-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:14:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZFtp-0004R0-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:14:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZFtZ-0000y1-0s; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:14:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZFtX-0000xl-D9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:13:59 -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 QAA21436 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 16:13:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZFtV-0004Qs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:13:57 -0400 Received: from bay8-f13.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.13] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZFtU-0004QP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:13:57 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:12:28 -0700 Received: from 213.104.229.126 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 20:12:28 GMT X-Originating-IP: [213.104.229.126] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] Choicelist - The problems Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2003 20:12:28.0063 (UTC) FILETIME=[EC3A3AF0:01C343FA] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Jul 2003 20:12:28 +0000 Choicelist - A list of problems 1. Interception of data streams to and from proxy. 2. Doesn't prevent spam to user's account, only that which is directed to choicelist. 3. Whitelisting is easily bypassed by forging the sending address, ip address, etc. 4. Instant opt-out only applies to Choicelist not email from other sources. 5. Interception of data streams at master server. 6. 'Secret code' can be intercepted from email. 7. Database size to impractical for mass deployment. These are the main weaknesses of the system. I'm afraid it would not stop spam or even reduce it by any significant amount. Spammers, as you have stated would avoid the system, however, it would be because they can still continue to send spam the way they currently do. Choicelist just creates a list that may bypass filters on the web. In order to bypass these filters procedures would have to be adopted to allow deactivation of the filters for bulk email transmission. This could perhaps lead to developing a larger weakness, in that, hackers may intercept any codes used to control filters. The only way choicelist could secure bulk email would be integrating it upon the 'GIEIS' architecture, however, 'GIEIS' has unbreakable methods of handling bulk email already. 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 Sun Jul 6 17:27:49 2003 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 RAA22926 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 17:27:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZH2Z-0002yt-AE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:27:23 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66LRNwY011453 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 17:27:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZH2Z-0002ye-7H for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:27:23 -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 RAA22920; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 17:27:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZH2W-0004or-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:27:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZH2W-0004oo-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:27:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZH2D-0002wk-Nl; Sun, 06 Jul 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 19ZH1l-0002wW-2R for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:26:33 -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 RAA22912 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 17:26:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZH1i-0004oX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:26:30 -0400 Received: from [63.175.177.49] (helo=deepskytech.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZH1h-0004oU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:26:30 -0400 Received: from 63.175.177.201 (63.175.177.201) by deepskytech.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 3.2.1) for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 21:26:35 +0100 From: "Steven G. Willis" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis To: asrg@ietf.org X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 2.0 (Blindsider) 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, 6 Jul 2003 21:26:30 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 07/06/2003 at 17:09 it was written: >>>At 03:47 AM 7/6/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron continued his neverending >>babble: >> >>Please, can not someone finally get rid of this individual once and for >>all? >> >>The total lack of understanding on the part of Mr. McCarron, and his >>continued abuse of the resources of this list, should be clear enough even >>to the most discerning of standards. > >Mark Response: > >My lack of understanding, now there is a bold statement. Please show us >your understanding capabilites and demonstrate how to bypass 'GIEIS'!!!! Please refer to my remarks made to you privately back in March/April of this year, made after you had initially contacted our firm regarding investment and support for using your system. I made it clear to you at that time that: a) I did not appreciate your spamming my firm and more than half a dozen of our clients; b) That your system was clearly not a realistic solution to the problem of spam, either on a technical or on a financial level; c) Your descriptions of your system are clearly not worthy of any consideration for feasibility until you learn more about the existing infrastructure for SMTP and understand more clearly the exact nature of the spam problem. Having watched your "system" progress over the last 3+ months, it is clear also that you have not in any way acquired any of the skills or knowledge to satisfy these needs. Further, your ludicrous statements on this forum make it obvious that your desire is not one to justify any further clarification of your continued failings. Most people on this forum have already encountered induhviduals that have no capacity for listening while taking part in communications. And, for most instances of this nature, merely ignoring these people and devoting as little time to responding to them is often the best course of action. Something I do intend to follow... Cheers! ================================================================ Steven G. Willis sgwillis@deepskytech.com 772.794.9494 Deep Sky Technologies, Inc. http://www.deepskytech.com/ http://www.badchickens.com/ http://www.store-secure.com/ ================================================================ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 6 17:59:33 2003 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 RAA23308 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 17:59:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZHXG-0003k0-HF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:59:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h66Lx6Zu014380 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 17:59:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZHXG-0003jr-Ce for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:59:06 -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 RAA23280; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 17:59:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZHXD-0004vZ-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:59:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZHXD-0004vW-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:59:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZHXB-0003hz-An; Sun, 06 Jul 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 19ZHWi-0003hm-NW for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:58:32 -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 RAA23269 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 17:58:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZHWg-0004vS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:58:30 -0400 Received: from 000-227-904.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.129.67] helo=68.27.129.67) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZHWX-0004vH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:58:22 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030706175715.00bc3510@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: , "'Paul Judge'" , From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: [Asrg] 4. Survey of Solutions - Consent Model (updated) 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 RAA23270 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Jul 2003 17:57:18 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 01:50 PM 7/4/2003 -0400, Bob Wyman wrote: >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >I wrote up an document on the consent model > I think it would be good to strip from the document the general >discussion of the spam problem and focus on the technical framework. >..... I have posted an updated version of the consent framework online=20 (http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-consent-framework.html), a= nd=20 here. I rewrote the document in-line with Bob's suggestions, and=20 restructured it similar to RFC 2778. I also added a history section. In general I think that a few things are needed. First of all, it would b= e=20 very useful to take a look at RFC 2778 which defines a model for instant=20 messaging and base our document on a similar structure. Second of all, th= is=20 document is too much for one person to write, and we need a small committ= ee=20 of volunteers to work on it, so anyone who wants to do that please step=20 forward. Also, perhaps we should reformat it as an Internet draft? ---------------------------snip-------------------------- Consent Framework for Fighting Spam v0.0.2 Written by Yakov Shafranovich , last=20 updated on July 6th, 2003. Copyright =A9 2003 The Internet Society (ISOC). This document is subject = to=20 copyright provisions described in RFC 2026. This is a working document of= =20 the Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) of the Internet Research Task Force=20 (IRTF) and may change frequently. The most current version of this docume= nt=20 may be viewed at=20 (www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-consent-framework.html) Abstract This document defines an abstract framework for consent-based communicati= on=20 systems. It defines what consent is, how consent is managed, different=20 components of consent systems, services provided by these components and=20 terminology used in consent systems. The goal of this document is to=20 provide a framework for developing, evaluating, understanding and compari= ng=20 anti-spam tools. 1. Introduction. 1.1. Purpose. The current email system allows Internet users to exchange messages quick= ly=20 and reliably. However in the recent years the problem of unwanted email=20 messages, loosely referred to as "spam", has increased in scale, growth,=20 and effect; growing to account for a large percentage of the mail volume = on=20 the Internet. This unwanted traffic stands to affect local networks, the=20 infrastructure, and the way that people use email. Due to the large impact of the spam problem on the Internet, many compani= es=20 and individuals have been developing anti-spam tools for the past few=20 years. In order to develop, evaluate, understand and compare various=20 anti-spam tools and proposals, we believe that it is essential to first=20 develop an abstract model into which these tools and proposals would fit.= =20 In [CHARTER] the problem of "unwanted email messages" is recast as a=20 problem of "consent-based communication" and the model of anti-spam=20 response is recast as a "consent model". According to [CHARTER] this mean= s=20 "that an individual or organization should be able to express consent or=20 lack of consent for certain communication and have the architecture suppo= rt=20 those desires". The various anti-spam tools in use today and being propos= ed=20 are geared towards that task of allowing the individuals and organization= =20 to express their consent. We believe that a single consent framework woul= d=20 greatly benefit the Internet community by allowing an overall view of=20 anti-spam solutions, facilitating easier evaluation and discussion of=20 individual proposals and allowing for development of interoperability=20 protocols between various anti-spam tools. This model does not concern itself with defining what spam is =96 one=20 person's spam message may be another's freedom of speech. Thus, we only=20 seek to define a consent framework =96 everything else is left to the=20 implementors and the users themselves. 1.2. Document Layout. The model consists of various components, descriptions of services provid= ed=20 by these components and a vocabulary facilitating discussion. In this=20 document, each element of the model appears in upper case (e.g., CONSENT=20 POLICY). No term in lower case or mixed case is intended to be a term of=20 the model. The first part of this document is intended as an overview of=20 the model. The second part of the document is the actual definition of th= e=20 model, with terms presented in alphabetical order for ease of reference.=20 The overview is intended to be helpful but is not definitive; it may=20 contain inadvertent differences from the definitions in the model. For an= y=20 such difference, the definition(s) in the model are taken to be correct,=20 rather than the explanation(s) in the overview. 2. Overview. The idea for consent model within the ASRG was first proposed in [CHARTER= ]: "Therefore, we generalize the problem into "consent-based communication".= =20 This means that an individual or organization should be able to express=20 consent or lack of consent for certain communication and have the=20 architecture support those desires." Users, both individuals and organizations, express their wishes as to wha= t=20 kind of email they want to receive. This is referred to as CONSENT. On th= e=20 other hand, LACK OF CONSENT is when there is no prior CONSENT expressed b= y=20 the user or when the user revoked prior CONSENT. Aside from manually=20 expressing CONSENT by moving or deleting messages, RECEIVERS can also=20 formulate various rules under which the software processing their email m= ay=20 assume CONSENT or LACK OF CONSENT, and grant or revoke CONSENT on behalf = of=20 the RECEIVER. CONSENT may not exist in advance of the initial email=20 communications, it may be granted or revoked automatically based on the=20 CONSENT POLICY. These sets of rules are called CONSENT RULES and a specif= ic=20 compilation of those rules related to a specific RECEIVER is called a=20 CONSENT POLICY. CONSENT POLICIES have SCOPE which are rules as to when an= d=20 to whom the CONSENT POLICY applies, and with whom it may be shared. Based on [CHARTER] the consent framework consists of three types of=20 components: CONSENT EXPRESSION COMPONENT, POLICY ENFORCEMENT COMPONENT an= d=20 SOURCE TRACKING COMPONENT. CONSENT EXPRESSION COMPONENTS let the RECEIVER= =20 formulate CONSENT POLICIES. POLICY ENFORCEMENT COMPONENTS enforce CONSENT= =20 POLICIES on incoming email. SOURCE TRACKING COMPONENTS identify and track= =20 SENDERS that violate the CONSENT POLICIES. They may also provide data abo= ut=20 the the SENDERS which may be used by the POLICY ENFORCEMENT COMPONENTS. In the consent model we have a SENDER and RECEIVER of email that=20 communicate with each other. The messages between the SENDER and the=20 RECEIVER are processed and transfered by their AGENTS and addressed from=20 the email address of the SENDER to the email address of the RECEIVER. The= =20 messages are transferred between the SENDER and the RECEIVER via a slew o= f=20 mail transfer protocols such as SMTP. The RECEIVER expresses his CONSENT=20 POLICY via the CONSENT EXPRESSION COMPONENT. This CONSENT POLICY is made=20 available to the POLICY ENFORCEMENT COMPONENT, which will enforce it for=20 incoming messages. The SOURCE TRACKING COMPONENT may also provide=20 additional information about the SENDER which will be taken into account=20 when enforcing the CONSENT POLICY. Aside from that the SOURCE TRACKING=20 COMPONENT is also used to track down violators of the CONSENT POLICY so=20 action may be taken against them. 2.1. CONSENT POLICIES. RECEIVERS can also formulate various rules under which the software=20 processing their email may assume CONSENT or LACK OF CONSENT, and grant o= r=20 revoke CONSENT on behalf of the user. These sets of rules are called=20 CONSENT RULES and a specific compilation of those rules related to a=20 specific RECEIVER is called a CONSENT POLICY. CONSENT POLICIES have SCOPE= =20 consisting of SCOPE RULES as to when and to whom the CONSENT POLICY=20 applies, and with whom, when and how it may be shared. Specific CONSENT RULES may also rely on CONSENT TOKENS which are pieces o= f=20 data exchanged between the RECEIVER and the SENDER, which will grant=20 consent to the SENDER in accordance with the CONSENT POLICY of the=20 RECEIVER. Examples of such tokens are C/R messages, hash cash tokens,=20 e-postage, digital certificates, trusted sender seals (such as Habeas and= =20 BondedSender), etc. Upon recipient of a valid CONSENT TOKEN, the POLICY=20 ENFORCEMENT COMPONENT will grant CONSENT on behalf of the RECEIVER to the= =20 SENDER to a period of time defined by the RECEIVER's CONSENT POLICY. A CONSENT POLICY of a specific RECEIVER does not merely reflect his=20 choices. It is also based on the capabilities and settings of the CONSENT= =20 EXPRESSION COMPONENT used, the capabilities and settings of the POLICY=20 ENFORCEMENT COMPONENT used, and by the SCOPE of the CONSENT POLICY of=20 organization or ISP to which the RECEIVER belongs. The specific=20 implementation being used by the RECEIVER, or his organization/ISP might=20 support only specific types of CONSENT RULES which will be used in creati= on=20 of the policy. CONSENT POLICIES from multiple RECEIVERS maybe combined to= =20 create a combined CONSENT POLICY for the entire organization or ISP. The=20 organization or ISP may also impose its CONSENT POLICY on the RECEIVERS=20 within its domain. Multiple ISPs and organizations may also shared CONSEN= T=20 POLICIES in order to allow for interoperability between themselves.=20 Standard CONSENT POLICIES may also be defined as Best Current Practices=20 (BCP) documents. Portions of the CONSENT POLICY may be communicated to the SENDER accordin= g=20 to the SCOPE of the policy either by the CONSENT EXPRESSION COMPONENT or=20 the POLICY ENFORCEMENT COMPONENT. When communicated by the CONSENT=20 EXPRESSION COMPONENT, the purpose is to let SENDERS know what kind of=20 CONSENT RULES they should follow in order for their email to be accepted.= =20 Examples of this might be when an ISP publishes a set of email policies f= or=20 other domains which must be followed in order for the email to be receive= d.=20 When communicated by the POLICY ENFORCEMENT COMPONENT, the purpose of the= =20 communications will be to inform the SENDER of LACK OF CONSENT by the=20 RECEIVER and to request a CONSENT TOKEN (if applicable). AGENTS=20 communicating with each other may share CONSENT POLICIES to facilitate=20 communications. They may also pass CONSENT TOKENS between themselves in=20 order to dynamically grant or revoke consent to the RECEIVER, all accordi= ng=20 to the CONSENT POLICY SCOPE. Two aspects must be kept in mind. First of all consent systems may grant = or=20 revoke CONSENT automatically based on the CONSENT POLICY. The CONSENT=20 POLICY does not define CONSENT only, it also defines conditions for=20 automatically granting and revoking CONSENT. Additionally, machines canno= t=20 perfectly reproduce human wishes and the CONSENT POLICY created might not= =20 match exactly what the end-user wants especially considering other CONSEN= T=20 POLICIES such as the organization's and the ISP's. 2.2. CONSENT EXPRESSION COMPONENT. This component provides abilities to the RECEIVER to define and maintain = a=20 set of CONSENT RULES and SCOPE RULES which form a CONSENT POLICY for that= =20 RECEIVER. This component also communicates with the CONSENT EXPRESSION=20 COMPONENTS of the RECEIVER's organization and ISP to comply with their=20 SCOPE RULES and CONSENT POLICIES and to perhaps create a combined CONSENT= =20 POLICY for the organization. This component also communicates the CONSENT= =20 POLICY to the POLICY ENFORCEMENT COMPONENT which will enforce it. 2.3. POLICY ENFORCEMENT COMPONENT. This component processes incoming email for the RECEIVER based on his=20 CONSENT POLICY as modified by the CONSENT POLICIES of the ISP and the=20 organization. This component is also responsible for communicating with t= he=20 CONSENT EXPRESSION COMPONENTS in order to allow the RECEIVERS to define a= nd=20 maintain their CONSENT POLICIES. This component may also communicate with= =20 the SENDER in accordance with SCOPE in order to facilitate email transfer= .=20 This component may also communicate with SOURCE TRACKING COMPONENTS to=20 obtain information about the SENDER to be used for enforcement or to repo= rt=20 violations of CONSENT POLICIES. 2.4. SOURCE TRACKING COMPONENT. This component facilitates identification and tracking of SENDERS either = in=20 order to help the POLICY ENFORCEMENT COMPONENT make decisions or to deter= =20 violators of the CONSENT POLICY by tracking, identifying and reporting th= em. 2.5. Protocols. A MAIL TRANSFER PROTOCOL is used to transfer email messages between the=20 SENDER and the RECEIVER. This transfer process may involve one or more=20 software AGENTS. [Ed. more protocols needed: 1. Protocols for sharing CONSENT RULES, SCOPE RULES and CONSENT POLICIES 2. Protocols for sharing CONSENT TOKENS. ] 2.6. Formats. [Ed. We need to define: 1. Language and format for CONSENT AND SCOPE RULES 2. Format for CONSENT POLICIES. 3. Format for CONSENT TOKENS. ] 3. Model Terminology. AGENT =96 a software tool that is representing a human user CONSENT =96 an expression of wanting to receive specific email CONSENT EXPRESSION COMPONENT =96 components that lets RECEIVERS define=20 CONSENT POLICIES CONSENT POLICY =96 a set of CONSENT RULES and SCOPE rules for a specific = RECEIVER CONSENT TOKEN =96 a piece of data that is used by the POLICY ENFORCEMENT=20 COMPONENT to grant or revoke CONSENT based on the CONSENT POLICY LACK OF CONSENT =96 an expression of not wanting to receive specific emai= l or=20 absence of prior CONSENT MAIL TRANSFER PROTOCOL =96 a protocol used to transfer email between the=20 SENDER and the RECEIVER POLICY ENFORCEMENT COMPONENT =96 a component that enforces CONSENT POLICI= ES=20 for the RECEIVER RECEIVER =96 user receiving the email SCOPE =96 combination of SCOPE RULES defining how CONSENT POLICIES are sh= ared SCOPE RULES =96 rules defining how CONSENT POLICIES are shared SENDER =96 user sending the email SOURCE TRACKING COMPONENT =96 components used to identify and track SENDE= RS=20 either to help make POLICY ENFORCEMENT COMPONENT make decisions or to det= er=20 SENDERS from violating the CONSENT POLICY 4. Security Considerations. [Ed. To be added] 5. Privacy Considerations. [Ed. To be added] 6. Acknowledgments. This document is the work of the Anti Spam Research Group (ASRG) of the=20 Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). 7. References. [CHARTER] Charter of the ASRG, current version available at=20 (http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html) Appendix A =96 Document History 0.0.1 / July 4th, 2003 / Initial publication 0.0.2 / July 5th, 2003 / Took out non-essential stuff, rewrote certain po= rtions ---------------------------snip-------------------------- =20 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 6 20:38:53 2003 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 UAA26795 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 20:38:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZK1R-0007gl-V1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 20:38:26 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h670cPKT029551 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 20:38:25 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZK1R-0007gY-Rx for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 20:38:25 -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 UAA26788; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 20:38:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZK1P-0005wv-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 20:38:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZK1P-0005ws-00; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 20:38:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZK13-0007eX-5R; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 20:38:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZK0F-0007TO-T0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 20:37:11 -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 UAA26769 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 20:37:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZK0D-0005wB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 20:37:09 -0400 Received: from law12-f103.law12.hotmail.com ([64.4.19.103] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZK0C-0005vq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 20:37:08 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 17:36:38 -0700 Received: from 12.254.138.252 by lw12fd.law12.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:36:38 GMT X-Originating-IP: [12.254.138.252] X-Originating-Email: [pontifier@hotmail.com] From: "John Fenley" To: markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Choicelist - The problems Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2003 00:36:38.0994 (UTC) FILETIME=[D41E5B20:01C3441F] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id UAA26770 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Jul 2003 18:36:38 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >From: "Mark McCarron" >To: asrg@ietf.org >Subject: [Asrg] Choicelist - The problems >Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 20:12:28 +0000 > >Choicelist - A list of problems > >1. Interception of data streams to and from proxy. Quote from the PDF on my site: "Choicelist by Proxy would be less secure and fast than using an MUA=20 compatible with Choicelist, but would allow anyone to gain the advantages of Choicelist without changing=20 Email software." >2. Doesn't prevent spam to user's account, only that which is directed = to=20 >choicelist. Choicelist is a filter bypassing system, it allows existing filters to wo= rk=20 harder because it minimizes the risk of false positives. >3. Whitelisting is easily bypassed by forging the sending address, ip=20 >address, etc. 2 more quotes from the PDF: "Choicelist provides a way for these 2 things to happen easily, as well a= s=20 provide other information such as content labeling, or authentication=20 information (PgP signature key, authorized sending IP address, Etc=85)." "Mail must pass the authentication tests selected by the identity control= ler=20 before it is delivered in the name of that identity." Any type of message authentication system can be used, even ones that=20 haven=92t been invented yet. >4. Instant opt-out only applies to Choicelist not email from other=20 >sources. It only has to work on Choicelist enabled mail because Choicelist gives a= n=20 advantage as soon as 2 people start using it. From there the advantage ju= st=20 gets stronger. >5. Interception of data streams at master server. 2 more quotes: "The entire database will be available in weekly releases as a collection= of=20 100 Mb files and the MD5 checksum for each one." "Using the public database releases to create a private mirror is the mos= t=20 secure way to access the database." >6. 'Secret code' can be intercepted from email. You are correct. Though if your messages can be intercepted or re-routed = by=20 someone you have bigger problems than spam. Also, this is a problem that can be fixed by only minor human interventio= n=20 at Choicelist by the responsible parties. >7. Database size to impractical for mass deployment. It is a large database now, but the database size will not grow nearly as= =20 fast as our ability to deal with it. Therefore over time the database will appear to shrink. 10 years ago 1 Gigabyte of storage was huge. Now I can't buy one less than 20 Gigabytes in size. 10 years from now the entire database may be held trivially on a memory=20 stick...Who Knows. This is a long-term solution. >These are the main weaknesses of the system. I'm afraid it would not st= op=20 >spam or even reduce it by any significant amount. Spammers, as you have= =20 >stated would avoid the system, however, it would be because they can sti= ll=20 >continue to send spam the way they currently do. > >Choicelist just creates a list that may bypass filters on the web. In=20 >order to bypass these filters procedures would have to be adopted to all= ow=20 >deactivation of the filters for bulk email transmission. Choicelist does not deactivate filters, it sits beside them. Non-Choiceli= st=20 mail has no choice but to go through them. >This could perhaps lead to developing a larger weakness, in that, hacker= s=20 >may intercept any codes used to control filters. There is no control of filters granted by Choicelist. Choicelist merely=20 hands mail to the filters if the sender is not registered with Choicelist. >The only way choicelist could secure bulk email would be integrating it=20 >upon the 'GIEIS' architecture, however, 'GIEIS' has unbreakable methods = of=20 >handling bulk email already. Perhaps your magical EAS can solve world hunger and make pigs fly too. Touch=E9! John Fenley _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. =20 http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/featuredemail _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 00:55:47 2003 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 AAA00556 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 00:55:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZO25-0005CW-V6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:55:22 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h674tLc1019986 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 00:55:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZO25-0005CH-QF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:55:21 -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 AAA00550; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 00:55:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZO23-00007O-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:55:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZO22-00007K-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:55:18 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZO1m-00058z-4j; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:55:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZO1C-00058V-HK for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:54:26 -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 AAA00544 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 00:54:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZO19-00006w-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:54:23 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZO19-00006t-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:54:23 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip224-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.224]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 28BD136AAF for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 00:54:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 7 Jul 2003 00:54:14 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal: Separate ISP(s) for "guaranteed delivery" of email Message-ID: <20030707005414.B22087@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> <20030630022018.A2266@m433> <20030702165715.A6542@m433> <20030704110751.A10667@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 Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:26:21AM -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, 7 Jul 2003 00:54:14 -0400 On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:26:21AM -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote > One of us is misunderstanding. I'm not sure which of us. > My issue as a business is how do I ensure that I reliably get email > from customers who aren't paying to send. Given that... a) $9/month or freebie email accounts are, by definition, not business-class robust b) turning off filtering to guarantee reciept of customer email means a deluge of spam I would suggest web-forms for customer contact. -- 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 Jul 7 01:04:34 2003 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 BAA00817 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:04:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZOAX-0005Q2-Rj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:04:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67545pk020824 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:04:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZOAX-0005Pn-NW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:04:05 -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 BAA00810; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:04:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZOAU-0000Ct-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:04:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZOAU-0000Cq-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:04:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZOAT-0005Mp-2x; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:04:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZO9z-0005Mb-Cn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:03:31 -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 BAA00793 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:03:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZO9w-0000CE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:03:28 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZO9v-0000CB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:03:28 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip224-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.224]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AB3A536AAF for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:03:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:03:29 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] The Solution To Spam - The First Response Message-ID: <20030707010329.C22087@m433> References: <20030704181239.D10667@m433> <007f01c34303$ca005c50$0201a8c0@DXHIRX1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <007f01c34303$ca005c50$0201a8c0@DXHIRX1>; from kenhirsch@myself.com on Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 10:43:21AM -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, 7 Jul 2003 01:03:29 -0400 On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 10:43:21AM -0400, Ken Hirsch wrote > From: "Walter Dnes" > > Everybody starts off presumed innocent until listed in a DNSbl, which > > takes care of your worry about new/unknown servers. > > That's rather the opposite of what I meant. It is necessary that > new and unknown servers be presumed guilty. That's one of the main > problems with blacklists. > > There are thousands of new open relays and open proxies created > each week. A virus could create hundreds of thousands in a day. > Blacklists can't cope with that. Start off with DNSbls listing dynamic IP address *RANGES* (e.g. CIDRs) and you'll have most of today's proxy problem licked. Actually, blocking all non-static IP address ranges does converge to your proposal of white listing "valid" mail servers. -- 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 Jul 7 01:21:35 2003 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 BAA01250 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:21:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZOR0-00067w-Sr for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:21:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h675L6O6023551 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:21:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZOR0-00067m-PK for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:21:06 -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 BAA01243; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:21:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZOQx-0000RI-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:21:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZOQx-0000RF-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:21:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZOQv-00064o-DP; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:21:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZOQG-00063S-87 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:20:20 -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 BAA01211 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:20:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZOQD-0000Qf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:20:17 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZOQC-0000Qc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:20:16 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip224-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.224]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5231C36B3C for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:20:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:20:18 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nothing will stop spam??? Message-ID: <20030707012018.D22087@m433> References: <3F03E8F5.5040107@azza.com> <3F04C5F6.6030103@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: ; from nazgul@somewhere.com on Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:14:03AM -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, 7 Jul 2003 01:20:18 -0400 On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:14:03AM -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote > 1. Like many systems, this ties in tightly with identity. If I move > to a new ISP (or Comcast gets sold *again*) my email address changes. > How do I manage notifying all of my contacts. If it's important enough, get a personal domain, even if it's only a cheap email+web re-direction service to your physical ISP. You get to keep the address when you change ISP. > 2. If a consent token does degenerate to a password, then two > problems occur. One, it can be sold along with your email address, > just as email addresses are sold now. You've basically made it > simple for someone to transfer your consent. the only way around > that is to tie a consent token to the sender, which means complicated > software, and a knowledge of what addresses will be used to contact > you. (Again, I think people working on this should focus first on a > URL scheme for whitelisting. E.g. > whitelist:some-piece-of-information-identifying-senders.) PGP (and GPG) already exist, and have been in use long enough that submarine-patents are unlikely (never say "never"). Front-ends for signing exist in Windows, even. No need to re-invent the wheel. -- 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 Jul 7 01:32:36 2003 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 BAA01447 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:32:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZObf-0006S7-Nj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:32:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h675W7Si024799 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:32:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZObf-0006Ru-Ja for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:32:07 -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 BAA01427; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:32:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZObc-0000X1-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:32:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZObb-0000Wy-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:32:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZObZ-0006Ok-FA; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:32:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZOb6-0006OP-Oc for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:31:32 -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 BAA01417 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:31:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZOb3-0000Wa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:31:29 -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 19ZOb2-0000WX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:31:28 -0400 Received: from dino ([66.120.64.130]) by magic1.org for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 22:29:20 -0700 Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Scott Nelson Subject: Re: [Asrg] The Solution To Spam - The First Response Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Jul 2003 22:31:56 -0700 At 04:51 PM 7/3/03 -0400, Ken Hirsch wrote: >From: "Kee Hinckley" >> Identify verification is only part of the proposal I was responding >> to. The other piece was verifying the good behavior of cert owner. >> That requires a clearing house for complaints, an arbitration >> process, > >I don't really expect that to be much of a problem. People are quite eager >to give you free help to find violators and it's not expensive to put out >spamtrap addresses. > >>From what we've heard from ISP's, complaints are rare and they manage to >handle those without huge expense. From all sources I've seen, the overlap >between IP addresses of spammers and IP addressses of legitimate email is >tiny. > >As long as problem M (below) is solved, there's really very little point in >the certicate holder fighting revocation, since once identity is established >everybody else can use it to make their own determination as to whether to >accept mail from them. > >Problem M (Multiple identities/certificates/IP addresses/domain names/etc.): >> and a mechanism for ensuring that the same person doesn't >> pop up under a different name (which is a different sort of >> verification problem, as you point out). That's where I'd expect the >> expense to come. > >This is key. But I think it is necessary for any permanent solution to the >spam problem. Everything else I've seen proposed is either a temporary fix >in the spam arms race or is something (such as RMX) that would only be >useful if used in conjunction with something that solves problem M. > To paraphrase; If we give everyone an identity, there are two main problems; "the forgery problem" - how can we prove that someone claiming to be identity xyz really is xyz, and "the mule problem" (problem M) - how can we prove that xyz2 isn't just a throwaway identity. Digital signatures solve the forgery problem. There might be other solutions (like DMP) which are even easier to implement, but nothing /more/ difficult need be considered. Note that PGP signatures are already fairly ubiquitous, and the software to generate them is freely available. The mule problem is much more difficult to solve. I've heard ideas that would work, but I've never seen a solution that wasn't worse than the problem. For example, if getting an idea required paying $10,000 US, then we can be reasonably sure that people will not abuse the identity. But we could also be reasonably sure that most people wouldn't get one at all. I'm not convinced that there is an amount of money (or effort) that one could require that both reduces the mule problem to acceptable levels, and allows a reasonable number of people to get identities. However, I don't agree that it's necessary to solve the mule problem to solve the spam problem. The only thing that is necessary is to not trust strangers by default. If, for example, strangers had to put $10.00 at risk to introduce themselves, (much like Pay Up but with a significant amount of money) then there might be spam, but there wouldn't be a spam problem. Forcing everyone to use Digital signatures require a significant change to the infrastructure. Creating the ability to put cash at risk requires a change to the infrastructure, /and/ the implementation of a totally new escrow technology, but at least in theory, I see no reason why it couldn't work without solving the mule problem. >> Never mind the question of how you certify someone in a country that >> doesn't have as codified a banking and company registration system as >> those where most SSL certs are issued. > >This is a good question. I would hope that any people on the list with >knowledge about how CA's operate, especially internationally, would come >forward. Do you have any comments about Problem M? I notice that there is >a pbaker at VERISIGN.com. > >My earlier proposal about getting CAs more or less directly involved in the >spam problem might be misguided. As long as they can verify identity (in >the strong way, solving Problem M), then other organizations can build on >that to solve the spam problem. > As certs exist currently, they raise the cost of obtaining an identity, but it's still less than $100 US/year. Certs are only good for one year, but a spammer doesn't need to, and probably wouldn't, hold them for more than a month anyway. It's currently no more difficult to obtain a cert than it is to obtain a snail mail address. That could be changed of course, but as long as there are corporations, then there will be corporate identities. Although it's possible for even /that/ to be prevented, I think it's more likely that people would give up email altogether. Scott Nelson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 01:48:35 2003 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 BAA01630 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:48:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZOr8-000720-UM for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:48:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h675m6E7027023 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:48:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZOr8-00071m-RF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:48:06 -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 BAA01622; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:48:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZOr5-0000e3-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:48:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZOr5-0000e0-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:48:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZOr3-0006yj-BM; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:48:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZOqB-0006xr-6B for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:47:07 -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 BAA01579 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:47:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZOq8-0000ci-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:47:04 -0400 Received: from law14-f19.law14.hotmail.com ([64.4.21.19] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZOq7-0000cL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:47:03 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 22:46:34 -0700 Received: from 62.252.128.5 by lw14fd.law14.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 05:46:33 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.128.5] X-Originating-Email: [bhamilton20030201@hotmail.com] From: "Brian Hamilton" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] Some important comments Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2003 05:46:34.0152 (UTC) FILETIME=[1FB24A80:01C3444B] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 07 Jul 2003 05:46:33 +0000 I have been reading the posts from this group for about the last week. I have been deciding if I should post my thoughts on the 'GIEIS' architecture. As a network engineer for one of Britian's larger Internet services, I view 'GIEIS' as being an acceptable solution. I have examined the site almost 20 times and even put the architecture to the test using paper and pen. I am sorry to say that I could not find any point of weakness. I would have enjoyed proving Mr McCarron wrong. I think everyone on this list should carefully consider what Mr McCarron is proposing. I understand the point about Mr McCarron being annoying and posting frequently on the matter. On the other hand, 'GIEIS' is only what I can describe as being a perfect architecture. It is funny the contrast between the creator and the architecture. The creation of almost 2 million jobs is a major selling point behind 'GIEIS'. I will admit it is marketing but Mr McCarron's figures do match up. The ISP I work for is seriously considering investing in the implementation program of 'GIEIS'. Not only does it make excellent business sense to do so, but it also generates an unbelievable PR opportunity. Since the release of version 0.003 of the 'GIEIS' proposal, high level meetings have occured to discuss the system. When a new version appears, anyone would be lead to believe that the CEO has arrived there are that many managers present. 'GIEIS' is the simply one of the best proposals we have ever encountered. All I would suggest is that you do not attempt to judge the system based upon its creator. Brian. _________________________________________________________________ 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 Mon Jul 7 01:50:41 2003 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 BAA01696 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:50:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZOtA-0007DZ-FP for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:50:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h675oCmj027739 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:50:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZOtA-0007DK-B2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:50:12 -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 BAA01689; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:50:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZOt6-0000fG-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:50:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZOt6-0000fD-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:50:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZOsz-00076f-DJ; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:50:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZOs0-00075o-NP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:49:00 -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 BAA01667 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:48:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZOrx-0000ek-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:48:57 -0400 Received: from jaguar.icir.org ([192.150.187.74]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZOrw-0000eh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:48:56 -0400 Received: from jaguar.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jaguar.icir.org (8.12.8p1/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h675mnw9012610; Sun, 6 Jul 2003 22:48:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from vern@jaguar.icir.org) Message-Id: <200307070548.h675mnw9012610@jaguar.icir.org> To: "Mark McCarron" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis Cc: paul.judge@ciphertrust.com, asrg@ietf.org 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, 06 Jul 2003 22:48:49 -0700 > As I explained to you off-list also, I am both free to post as often and > reply to whom ever I want. No in fact you are not. I have urged Paul to deny you posting privileges to the ASRG list unless/until you are able to exhibit civil mailing list behavior, which includes being responsive to constructive dialog regarding your posts, heeding requests to take discussions to separate fora, refraining from advertising your scheme in each of your posts, and staying within the scope of the research group's mailing list. Vern (IRTF chair) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 01:55:33 2003 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 BAA01797 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:55:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZOxt-0007PB-J3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:55:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h675t5aH028459 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:55:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZOxt-0007Ow-Ft for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:55:05 -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 BAA01758; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:55:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZOxq-0000iA-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:55:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZOxp-0000i7-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:55:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZOxp-0007Jw-6o; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:55:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZOx6-0007HO-4V for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:54:16 -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 BAA01729 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:54:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZOx2-0000gx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:54:13 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZOx2-0000gu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:54:12 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip224-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.224]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8E91A36B0A for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:54:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:54:13 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4. Survey of Solutions - Consent Model Message-ID: <20030707015413.E22087@m433> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030703153840.00b6cc50@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030703153840.00b6cc50@solidmatrix.com>; from research@solidmatrix.com on Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:38:41PM -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id BAA01730 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 7 Jul 2003 01:54:13 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:38:41PM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote > This model assumes that users should be able to define what kind of ema= il=20 > they want to receive - this is refered to as "consent" . "Lack of conse= nt"=20 > is either when no prior consent existing or the users revoked their pri= or=20 > consent. This model does not concern itself with defining what spam is = =AD=20 > one person's spam message may be another's freedom of speech. Thus, we = only=20 > seek to define a framework to let users grant and deny consent, the rul= es=20 > under which this process is done is best left to the implementors and t= he=20 > users themselves. I have one worry about this. The suggested model seems to center on what type of email, rather than from who, the receiver is willing to receive. First, I question whether one can come up with something simple that'll specifically state that a consumer is looking for product X (egg beater, lawn-mower, whatever). Secondly, even if this could be accomplished, do I really want to risk getting email from several thousand businesses around the planet who are legitimately responding to my request? This is falling into the business/marketeering mindset of "push"-marketing. If I want something, I'll ask, fer-cryin-out-loud. In that case, my consent will be for company X to communicate with me. Another reason for concentrating on *WHO* we receive from is that corporate behaviour is remarkably consistent. One person mentioned in another message the example of Roving Software getting one bad customer, and being blocked. Guess what folks, Roving is blocked not only by a DNSbls, but also by a lot of personal lists. > Lookups in Realtime Black Lists (RBLs) *************************** I believe both the phrase and the acronym are trademarked by MAPS LLC. The generic term is "DNS based list" (DNSbl would be the acronym). Note that I did *NOT* say "DNS-based blocking list". A DNSbl can be used for either blacklisting or whitelisting. > Open relay testing (MAPS, RBLs, etc.) Trademarks again. > Detection of hacked computers (Dshield.org, etc. ****** "Compromised" is more appropriate. --=20 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 Jul 7 02:07:44 2003 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 CAA09818 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 02:07:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZP9g-000827-8C for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:07:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6767GF4030869 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 02:07:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZP9f-00081o-Bg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:07:15 -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 CAA09299; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 02:07:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZP9b-0000ol-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:07:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZP9b-0000oi-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:07:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZP9R-0007ws-Uw; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:07:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZP8w-0007qc-9W for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:06:30 -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 CAA08539 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 02:06:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZP8s-0000oQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:06:26 -0400 Received: from 000-230-228.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.138.105] helo=68.27.138.105) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZP8q-0000oI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:06:25 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707020557.00ba24f0@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] 3. Requirements - Technical Considerations (updated draft) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 07 Jul 2003 02:05:58 -0400 An updated draft of "Technical Considerations for Spam Control Mechanisms" has been posted to the IETF Internet Drafts directory. It can be found at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 02:15:38 2003 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 CAA13832 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 02:15:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZPHK-0000o8-3Z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:15:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h676FAvO003105 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 02:15:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZPHJ-0000o0-OV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:15:09 -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 CAA13772; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 02:15:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZPHG-0000tl-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:15:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZPHF-0000ti-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:15:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZPHC-0000kP-HM; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:15:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZPGh-0000i7-Hg for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:14:31 -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 CAA13715 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 02:14:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZPGe-0000tY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:14:28 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZPGd-0000tR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:14:27 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip224-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.224]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0AD8536C41 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 02:14:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 7 Jul 2003 02:14:18 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS Based - Security of DNS (was RE: [Asrg] DNSSEC not deployable) Message-ID: <20030707021418.F22087@m433> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D22BB@mou1wnexm02.verisig n.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030704104913.00ba7728@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: <5.2.0.9.2.20030704104913.00ba7728@std5.imagineis.com>; from research@solidmatrix.com on Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:08:35AM -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, 7 Jul 2003 02:14:18 -0400 On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:08:35AM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote > We need to determine for the future consideration of all DNS based > proposal the state of DNSSEC and its planned deployment. I strongly disagree with your conclusion. If DNS gets compromised that badly, the entire internet will collapse in a pile of rubble... - how is an MTA going to figure out the IP address from an MX record if DNS is kaput ? - how will people surf to www.bad.example.com if their OS can't get a reliable IP address ? - ftp, IRC, chat, messaging, etc. *EVERYTHING* goes down the tubes. - How many megabytes of hosts file can your OS take before it begins crawling each time you try a web lookup ? If we assume that there will be an internet tomorrow, requiring our solutions for email problems, we must also assume that DNS will be operational tomorrow. -- 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 Jul 7 02:19:35 2003 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 CAA14227 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 02:19:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZPL9-00010I-Ns for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:19:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h676J7vZ003726 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 02:19:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZPL8-0000wv-TG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:19:06 -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 CAA14174; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 02:19:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZPL5-0000vb-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:19:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZPL4-0000vY-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:19:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZPL3-0000ti-Df; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:19:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZPKI-0000tJ-N5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:18:14 -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 CAA14074 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 02:18:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZPKF-0000up-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:18:11 -0400 Received: from 000-230-228.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.138.105] helo=68.27.138.105) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZPKD-0000uk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:18:10 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707021416.00b56e30@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: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707020557.00ba24f0@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 Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Replacing SMTP Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 07 Jul 2003 02:17:51 -0400 The following information is essential for any proposal that seeks to replace the SMTP protocol and/or the email infrastructure of the Internet. This is a quote taken from section 4.1 of (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt), emphasis added: -----snip---- "A key construct to examination of adoption and benefit is "core-vs-edge". Generally, adoption at the edge of a system is easier and quicker than adoption in the core. If a mechanism affects the core (infrastructure) then it usually must be adopted by most or all of the infrastructure before it provides meaningful utility. IN SOMETHING THE SCALE OF THE INTERNET, IT CAN TAKE DECADES TO REACH THAT LEVEL OF ADOPTION, IF IT EVER DOES. Remember that the Internet comprises a massive number of independent administrations, each with their own politics and funding. What is important and feasible to one might be neither to another. If the latter administration is in the handling path for a message, then it will not have implemented the necessary control mechanism. Worse, it well might not be possible to change this. FOR EXAMPLE A PROPOSAL THAT REQUIRES A BRAND NEW MAIL SERVICE IS NOT LIKELY TO GAIN MUCH TRACTION. By contrast, some "edge" mechanisms provide utility to the first one, two or three adopters who interact with each other. No one else is needed for the adopters to gain some benefit. Each additional adopter makes the total system incrementally more useful. For example a filter can be useful to the first recipient to adopt it. A consent mechanism can be useful to the first two or three adopters, depending upon the design of the mechanism." -----snip---- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 02:22:36 2003 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 CAA14412 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 02:22:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZPO4-0001D5-QW for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:22:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h676M8Uk004645 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 02:22:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZPO3-0001Cq-Im for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:22:07 -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 CAA14403; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 02:22:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZPNz-0000wz-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:22:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZPNz-0000ww-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:22:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZPNx-00016c-K8; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:22:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZPNr-00016D-NX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:21:55 -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 CAA14400 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 02:21:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZPNo-0000wq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:21:52 -0400 Received: from 000-230-228.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.138.105] helo=68.27.138.105) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZPNl-0000wk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:21:50 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707022007.00bc5ae8@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] 6. Proposals - DNS Based - Security of DNS (was RE: [Asrg] DNSSEC not deployable) In-Reply-To: <20030707021418.F22087@m433> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030704104913.00ba7728@std5.imagineis.com> <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D22BB@mou1wnexm02.verisig n.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030704104913.00ba7728@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, 07 Jul 2003 02:21:32 -0400 At 02:14 AM 7/7/2003 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: >On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:08:35AM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote > > > We need to determine for the future consideration of all DNS based > > proposal the state of DNSSEC and its planned deployment. > > I strongly disagree with your conclusion. If DNS gets compromised >that badly, the entire internet will collapse in a pile of rubble... > > - how is an MTA going to figure out the IP address from an MX record > if DNS is kaput ? > > - how will people surf to www.bad.example.com if their OS can't get a > reliable IP address ? > > - ftp, IRC, chat, messaging, etc. *EVERYTHING* goes down the tubes. > > - How many megabytes of hosts file can your OS take before it begins > crawling each time you try a web lookup ? > > If we assume that there will be an internet tomorrow, requiring our >solutions for email problems, we must also assume that DNS will be >operational tomorrow. Thank you Walter. Point taken - numerous others have also pointed out that status of DNS-SEC is irrelevant for us for other reasons. I have learned the error of my ways :) Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 02:27:36 2003 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 CAA14567 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 02:27:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZPSu-0001Wn-Pw for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:27:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h676R8Zt005874 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 02:27:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZPSu-0001Wf-FK for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:27:08 -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 CAA14531; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 02:27:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZPSq-0000zY-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:27:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZPSq-0000zV-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:27:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZPSo-0001QU-13; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:27:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZPS9-0001NH-EE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:26:21 -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 CAA14476 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 02:26:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZPS5-0000z8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:26:17 -0400 Received: from 000-230-228.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.138.105] helo=68.27.138.105) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZPS3-0000yz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:26:16 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707021850.00ba24f0@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] 4. Survey of Solutions - Consent Model In-Reply-To: <20030707015413.E22087@m433> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030703153840.00b6cc50@solidmatrix.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030703153840.00b6cc50@solidmatrix.com> 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 CAA14478 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 07 Jul 2003 02:25:54 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 01:54 AM 7/7/2003 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: >On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:38:41PM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote > > > This model assumes that users should be able to define what kind of e= mail > > they want to receive - this is refered to as "consent" . "Lack of con= sent" > > is either when no prior consent existing or the users revoked their p= rior > > consent. This model does not concern itself with defining what spam i= s =AD > > one person's spam message may be another's freedom of speech. Thus, w= e=20 > only > > seek to define a framework to let users grant and deny consent, the r= ules > > under which this process is done is best left to the implementors and= the > > users themselves. > > I have one worry about this. The suggested model seems to center on >what type of email, rather than from who, the receiver is willing to >receive. First, I question whether one can come up with something >simple that'll specifically state that a consumer is looking for product >X (egg beater, lawn-mower, whatever). Secondly, even if this could be >accomplished, do I really want to risk getting email from several >thousand businesses around the planet who are legitimately responding to >my request? This is falling into the business/marketeering mindset of >"push"-marketing. If I want something, I'll ask, fer-cryin-out-loud. >In that case, my consent will be for company X to communicate with me. > > Another reason for concentrating on *WHO* we receive from is that >corporate behaviour is remarkably consistent. One person mentioned in >another message the example of Roving Software getting one bad customer, >and being blocked. Guess what folks, Roving is blocked not only by a >DNSbls, but also by a lot of personal lists. Please take a look at the updated draft=20 (http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-consent-framework.html),=20 these have been defined as: CONSENT =96 an expression of wanting to receive specific email LACK OF CONSENT =96 an expression of not wanting to receive specific emai= l or=20 absence of prior CONSENT I agree with you that CONSENT has not been defined properly, I am wonderi= ng=20 how we should redefine it properly.Maybe something like this: CONSENT - an expression of wanting to receive email from a specific SENDE= R LACK OF CONSENT =96 an expression of not wanting to receive email from a=20 specific SENDER or absence of prior CONSENT for that SENDER However, we need to take into account filters which check not for specifi= c=20 senders, but rather for specific types of email. Perhaps the two=20 definitions above should be combined. > > Lookups in Realtime Black Lists (RBLs) > *************************** > > I believe both the phrase and the acronym are trademarked by MAPS LLC. >The generic term is "DNS based list" (DNSbl would be the acronym). Note >that I did *NOT* say "DNS-based blocking list". A DNSbl can be used for >either blacklisting or whitelisting. > > > Open relay testing (MAPS, RBLs, etc.) > Trademarks again. > > > Detection of hacked computers (Dshield.org, etc. > ****** > "Compromised" is more appropriate. Take a look at the updated draft, these items have been removed=20 (http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-consent-framework.html). I= =20 think that its better to keep the model abstract. Yakov=20 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 06:36:47 2003 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 GAA20200 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 06:36:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZTM4-000266-Ta for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 06:36:21 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67AaKoZ008063 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 06:36:20 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZTM4-00025y-Mc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 06:36:20 -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 GAA20196; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 06:36:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZTM0-00034d-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 06:36:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZTM0-00034a-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 06:36:16 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZTLl-000247-Kv; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 06:36:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZTLW-000228-IE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 06:35:46 -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 GAA20178 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 06:35:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZTLS-00034N-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 06:35:42 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZTLR-00034E-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 06:35:41 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 06:34:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 06:22:32 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Mark McCarron'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Cc: "'Vern Paxson'" , Paul Judge Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis 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, 7 Jul 2003 06:22:31 -0400 Mark, Your posting privileges have been revoked due to your posting behavior. You have continued to ignore the scope of the ASRG's mailing list, ignore suggestions to move the detailed discussion of your system to an appropriate mailing list, and constantly advertise your system without any regard for constructive feedback or other proposals. If you assure me that you'll stay on-topic for ASRG and stop flogging GIEIS, I'll conditionally allow you posting privileges back on the mailing list (moderated until you prove that you really can be a well-behaving list member). Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark McCarron [mailto:markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 2:45 PM > To: paul.judge@ciphertrust.com; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis > > > As I explained to you off-list also, I am both free to post > as often and > reply to whom ever I want. The current 'work issues' have > been nothing more > than revised nonsense relating to matters that have already > been extensivly > 'defined'. > > Mark McCarron. > > > >From: Paul Judge > >To: 'Mark McCarron' > >CC: "'asrg@ietf.org'" > >Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis > >Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:02:14 -0400 > > > >Mark, > > > >As I have explained to you previously off-list, the volume of your > >posts relative to the impact of them is disproportionate. > The mailing > >list is currently focused on the work items. Your proposal has been > >made known to thr group. At this point, it would be more > efficient to > >have detailed discussion of the GIEIS system take place off > in a more > >focused forum consisting of interested individuals. > > > >Please set up a separate mailing list for detailed discussion of the > >GIEIS system. This has been done for other proposals such as SPF. > >Please focus on setting this up immediately rather than > responding to > >individual responses on the ASRG mailing list. Once this list is set > >up, feel free to post the location to the ASRG mailing list for > >interested parties. > > > >Thanks, > >Paul > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: C. Wegrzyn [mailto:wegrzyn@garbagedump.com] > > > Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 12:41 PM > > > To: Mark McCarron > > > Cc: pbaker@verisign.com; asrg@ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis > > > > > > > > > God this is becoming silly. Now he is predicting 2.26 > million jobs > > > created by his system to just send email? It really is > time to get > > > this trite baloney off of the group.I doubt many people believe > > > it... > > > > > > Mark McCarron wrote: > > > > > > > This post relates to the 'GIEIS' system. The release > > > version is 0.005 > > > > and details job creations of up to 2.26 Million. The > > > 'GIEIS' system > > > > can be viewed here: > > > > > > > > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark McCarron. > > > > > > > > > > > >> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > > > >> To: "'Mark McCarron'" , > > > >> "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org > > > >> Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS > > > >> Analysis > > > >> Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 06:19:42 -0700 > > > >> > > > >> > This post relates to the 'GIEIS' system > > > >> > > > >> This one does not. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > (c) Including intellectual copyright, Mark McCarron 2003, > > > All rights > > > >> > reserved > > > >> > > > >> By posting in this forum you are agreeing to abide by the IRTF > > > >> IPR policy (such as it is). There is no such thing as > > > >> intellectual copyright. > > > >> > > > >> If you do not want to accept the IPR policy of the group then > > > >> stop posting here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark's Response: > > > > > > > > 'GIEIS' is well legally protected. Just because the system is > > > > discussed here, does not mean it gives away any rights. > > > Just because > > > > you can talk about MS Outlook Express does not mean you own > > > it or can > > > > use any of its features. > > > > > > > > Also, I think you are more worried that 'GIEIS will > result in the > > > > closure of Verisign as its services would be completely > redundant. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > Trying to impose their values ond legal systems on other > > > countries > > > >> > has been a favorite with these two, however, as yet, > > > >> > unsucessful. Many claims are made but none have been upheld. > > > >> > > > >> Ex-President Noriega of Panama is in jail in Florida > as a result > > > >> of an extra teritorial judgement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark's Response: > > > > > > > > Yes, and the US is also holding about 600 in a 'legal > blackhole', > > > > doesn't make it legal to the rest of the world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >I am aware of these type of scenarios, however, the simplist > > > >> solution is to > > > >> > > > >> >avoid the country in question. Nothing can be done > about that. > > > >> > > > >> The simplest solution would be to avoid GIEIS and > anyone promoting > > > >> similar > > > >> schemes. > > > >> > > > >> > This was due to violations of International law, > quite different. > > > >> > > > >> The extrateritorial application of national law *is* > International > > > >> law. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark's Response: > > > > > > > > No, International law is quite seperate from National > law. They do, > > > > however, have similar laws. Also, I don't see any > country in the > > > > world obtaining an extradition warrant for a port scan. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark McCarron > > > > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > On the move? 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Asrg mailing list > > > Asrg@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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 Mon Jul 7 06:58:35 2003 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 GAA20490 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 06:58:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZThC-0002qz-0L for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 06:58:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67Aw9sl010967 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 06:58:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZThB-0002qo-T9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 06:58:09 -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 GAA20471; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 06:58:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZTh7-00039L-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 06:58:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZTh7-00039I-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 06:58:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZTh3-0002nh-3r; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 06:58:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZTgA-0002mx-T0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 06:57:06 -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 GAA20438 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 06:56:59 -0400 (EDT) From: william@elan.net Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZTg4-000391-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 06:57:00 -0400 Received: from sokol.elan.net ([216.151.192.200]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZTg3-00038y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 06:57:00 -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 h678NdEW017193 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:23:39 -0700 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h678Ndbl017189 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:23:39 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Some important comments 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: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:23:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [62.252.128.5] <----- See below X-Originating-Email: [bhamilton20030201@hotmail.com] From: "Brian Hamilton" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] Some important comments Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2003 05:46:34.0152 (UTC) FILETIME=[1FB24A80:01C3444B] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org 5.128.252.62.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer inktomi2-ren.server.ntl.com. [WHOIS.RIPE.NET] inetnum: 62.252.128.0 - 62.252.159.255 netname: NTL descr: NTL Internet descr: Renfrew site country: GB admin-c: NNMC1-RIPE tech-c: NNMC1-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PA mnt-by: AS5089-MNT changed: hostmaster@ntli.net 20010706 changed: hostmaster@ntli.net 20020815 source: RIPE GEIS Webpage is hosted at NTL.com: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.... Conclusion: its possible this maybe Mark McCarron posting from website cgi or otherwise redirecting from it On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Brian Hamilton wrote: > I have been reading the posts from this group for about the last week. I > have been deciding if I should post my thoughts on the 'GIEIS' architecture. > > As a network engineer for one of Britian's larger Internet services, I view > 'GIEIS' as being an acceptable solution. I have examined the site almost 20 > times and even put the architecture to the test using paper and pen. I am > sorry to say that I could not find any point of weakness. I would have > enjoyed proving Mr McCarron wrong. > > I think everyone on this list should carefully consider what Mr McCarron is > proposing. I understand the point about Mr McCarron being annoying and > posting frequently on the matter. On the other hand, 'GIEIS' is only what I > can describe as being a perfect architecture. It is funny the contrast > between the creator and the architecture. > > The creation of almost 2 million jobs is a major selling point behind > 'GIEIS'. I will admit it is marketing but Mr McCarron's figures do match > up. The ISP I work for is seriously considering investing in the > implementation program of 'GIEIS'. Not only does it make excellent business > sense to do so, but it also generates an unbelievable PR opportunity. Since > the release of version 0.003 of the 'GIEIS' proposal, high level meetings > have occured to discuss the system. When a new version appears, anyone > would be lead to believe that the CEO has arrived there are that many > managers present. > > 'GIEIS' is the simply one of the best proposals we have ever encountered. > > All I would suggest is that you do not attempt to judge the system based > upon its creator. > > Brian. > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 07:36:38 2003 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 HAA21484 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 07:36:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZUHx-0004XI-IN for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:36:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67Ba9Ue017435 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 07:36:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZUHx-0004X8-Cz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:36:09 -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 HAA21472; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 07:36:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZUHw-0003Pm-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:36:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZUHv-0003Pj-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:36:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZUHp-0004V9-Jx; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:36:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZUHJ-0004Ux-9L for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:35:29 -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 HAA21466 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 07:35:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZUHI-0003Pf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:35:28 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZUHI-0003Pb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:35:28 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:34:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 07:22:35 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'william@elan.net'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Some important comments 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, 7 Jul 2003 07:22:35 -0400 "Brian Hamilton" subscribed to the list at 12:46am and posted at 1:37am. The posts are also coming from the same IP address as Mark McCarron's (see headers below). Based on this information, we assume that this is simply another email address of Mark McCarron. Therefore, it is has also been denied posting priveleges. Received: from 62.252.128.5 by lw14fd.law14.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 05:46:33 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.128.5] X-Originating-Email: [bhamilton20030201@hotmail.com] Received: from 62.252.128.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 06:11:56 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.128.5] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] > -----Original Message----- > From: william@elan.net [mailto:william@elan.net] > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 4:24 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Some important comments > > > X-Originating-IP: [62.252.128.5] <----- See below > X-Originating-Email: [bhamilton20030201@hotmail.com] > From: "Brian Hamilton" > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] Some important comments > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed > Message-ID: > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2003 05:46:34.0152 (UTC) > FILETIME=[1FB24A80:01C3444B] > Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org > > 5.128.252.62.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer > inktomi2-ren.server.ntl.com. > > [WHOIS.RIPE.NET] > inetnum: 62.252.128.0 - 62.252.159.255 > netname: NTL > descr: NTL Internet > descr: Renfrew site > country: GB > admin-c: NNMC1-RIPE > tech-c: NNMC1-RIPE > status: ASSIGNED PA > mnt-by: AS5089-MNT > changed: hostmaster@ntli.net 20010706 > changed: hostmaster@ntli.net 20020815 > source: RIPE > > GEIS Webpage is hosted at NTL.com: > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.... > > Conclusion: its possible this maybe Mark McCarron posting > from website cgi > or otherwise redirecting from it > > On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Brian Hamilton wrote: > > > I have been reading the posts from this group for about the > last week. > > I > > have been deciding if I should post my thoughts on the > 'GIEIS' architecture. > > > > As a network engineer for one of Britian's larger Internet > services, I > > view > > 'GIEIS' as being an acceptable solution. I have examined > the site almost 20 > > times and even put the architecture to the test using paper > and pen. I am > > sorry to say that I could not find any point of weakness. > I would have > > enjoyed proving Mr McCarron wrong. > > > > I think everyone on this list should carefully consider what Mr > > McCarron is > > proposing. I understand the point about Mr McCarron being > annoying and > > posting frequently on the matter. On the other hand, > 'GIEIS' is only what I > > can describe as being a perfect architecture. It is funny > the contrast > > between the creator and the architecture. > > > > The creation of almost 2 million jobs is a major selling > point behind > > 'GIEIS'. I will admit it is marketing but Mr McCarron's > figures do match > > up. The ISP I work for is seriously considering investing in the > > implementation program of 'GIEIS'. Not only does it make > excellent business > > sense to do so, but it also generates an unbelievable PR > opportunity. Since > > the release of version 0.003 of the 'GIEIS' proposal, high > level meetings > > have occured to discuss the system. When a new version > appears, anyone > > would be lead to believe that the CEO has arrived there are > that many > > managers present. > > > > 'GIEIS' is the simply one of the best proposals we have ever > > encountered. > > > > All I would suggest is that you do not attempt to judge the system > > based > > upon its creator. > > > > Brian. > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 7 07:50:44 2003 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 HAA21783 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 07:50:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZUVb-0005Fq-4n for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:50:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67BoFlg020192 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 07:50:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZUVb-0005Fb-0Y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:50:15 -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 HAA21776; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 07:50:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZUVa-0003VS-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:50:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZUVZ-0003VP-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:50:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZUVN-0005Cc-5T; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:50:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZUUP-0005Bm-Qh for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:49:01 -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 HAA21762 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 07:49:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZUUO-0003VG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:49:01 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZUUO-0003VD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:49:00 -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 <20030707115044.YSAY28645.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 07:50:44 -0400 Message-ID: <3F095E26.6030409@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: Walter Dnes CC: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal: Separate ISP(s) for "guaranteed delivery" of email 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> <20030630022018.A2266@m433> <20030702165715.A6542@m433> <20030704110751.A10667@m433> <20030707005414.B22087@m433> In-Reply-To: <20030707005414.B22087@m433> 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, 07 Jul 2003 07:48:54 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I assume when you say: reliable you mean you will always get it if one is sent. Unfortunately there is no way in the SMTP world to do that. Chuck Wegrzyn Walter Dnes wrote: >On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:26:21AM -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote > > > >>One of us is misunderstanding. I'm not sure which of us. >>My issue as a business is how do I ensure that I reliably get email >>from customers who aren't paying to send. >> >> > > Given that... > a) $9/month or freebie email accounts are, by definition, not > business-class robust > b) turning off filtering to guarantee reciept of customer email means > a deluge of spam > > I would suggest web-forms for customer contact. > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 07:56:36 2003 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 HAA21992 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 07:56:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZUbH-0005Qr-Ln for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:56:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67Bu7WS020875 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 07:56:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZUbH-0005Qc-Ie for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:56:07 -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 HAA21967; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 07:56:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZUbG-0003Yx-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:56:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZUbG-0003Yu-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:56:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZUbC-0005Nd-2U; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:56:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZUb2-0005NH-Hx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:55:52 -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 HAA21956 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 07:55:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZUb1-0003Yj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:55:51 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZUb0-0003Yd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:55:50 -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 <20030707115742.YTFR28645.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com> for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 07:57:42 -0400 Message-ID: <3F095FC9.1090602@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 CC: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Some important comments 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: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:55:53 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit While GEIS might have some merit I find it funny that a person that is "rearchitecting" the whole eMail infrastructure of the internet doesn't know the simplest things about the current system! Chuck Wegrzyn Paul Judge wrote: >"Brian Hamilton" subscribed to the list at 12:46am and posted at 1:37am. > >The posts are also coming from the same IP address as Mark McCarron's (see >headers below). > >Based on this information, we assume that this is simply another email >address of Mark McCarron. Therefore, it is has also been denied posting >priveleges. > >Received: from 62.252.128.5 by lw14fd.law14.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; > Mon, 07 Jul 2003 05:46:33 GMT >X-Originating-IP: [62.252.128.5] >X-Originating-Email: [bhamilton20030201@hotmail.com] > > >Received: from 62.252.128.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; > Mon, 07 Jul 2003 06:11:56 GMT >X-Originating-IP: [62.252.128.5] >X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: william@elan.net [mailto:william@elan.net] >>Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 4:24 AM >>To: asrg@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: [Asrg] Some important comments >> >> >>X-Originating-IP: [62.252.128.5] <----- See below >>X-Originating-Email: [bhamilton20030201@hotmail.com] >>From: "Brian Hamilton" >>To: asrg@ietf.org >>Subject: [Asrg] Some important comments >>Mime-Version: 1.0 >>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >>Message-ID: >>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2003 05:46:34.0152 (UTC) >> FILETIME=[1FB24A80:01C3444B] >>Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org >> >>5.128.252.62.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer >>inktomi2-ren.server.ntl.com. >> >>[WHOIS.RIPE.NET] >>inetnum: 62.252.128.0 - 62.252.159.255 >>netname: NTL >>descr: NTL Internet >>descr: Renfrew site >>country: GB >>admin-c: NNMC1-RIPE >>tech-c: NNMC1-RIPE >>status: ASSIGNED PA >>mnt-by: AS5089-MNT >>changed: hostmaster@ntli.net 20010706 >>changed: hostmaster@ntli.net 20020815 >>source: RIPE >> >>GEIS Webpage is hosted at NTL.com: >>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.... >> >>Conclusion: its possible this maybe Mark McCarron posting >>from website cgi >> or otherwise redirecting from it >> >>On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Brian Hamilton wrote: >> >> >> >>>I have been reading the posts from this group for about the >>> >>> >>last week. >> >> >>>I >>>have been deciding if I should post my thoughts on the >>> >>> >>'GIEIS' architecture. >> >> >>>As a network engineer for one of Britian's larger Internet >>> >>> >>services, I >> >> >>>view >>>'GIEIS' as being an acceptable solution. I have examined >>> >>> >>the site almost 20 >> >> >>>times and even put the architecture to the test using paper >>> >>> >>and pen. I am >> >> >>>sorry to say that I could not find any point of weakness. >>> >>> >>I would have >> >> >>>enjoyed proving Mr McCarron wrong. >>> >>>I think everyone on this list should carefully consider what Mr >>>McCarron is >>>proposing. I understand the point about Mr McCarron being >>> >>> >>annoying and >> >> >>>posting frequently on the matter. On the other hand, >>> >>> >>'GIEIS' is only what I >> >> >>>can describe as being a perfect architecture. It is funny >>> >>> >>the contrast >> >> >>>between the creator and the architecture. >>> >>>The creation of almost 2 million jobs is a major selling >>> >>> >>point behind >> >> >>>'GIEIS'. I will admit it is marketing but Mr McCarron's >>> >>> >>figures do match >> >> >>>up. The ISP I work for is seriously considering investing in the >>>implementation program of 'GIEIS'. Not only does it make >>> >>> >>excellent business >> >> >>>sense to do so, but it also generates an unbelievable PR >>> >>> >>opportunity. Since >> >> >>>the release of version 0.003 of the 'GIEIS' proposal, high >>> >>> >>level meetings >> >> >>>have occured to discuss the system. When a new version >>> >>> >>appears, anyone >> >> >>>would be lead to believe that the CEO has arrived there are >>> >>> >>that many >> >> >>>managers present. >>> >>>'GIEIS' is the simply one of the best proposals we have ever >>>encountered. >>> >>>All I would suggest is that you do not attempt to judge the system >>>based >>>upon its creator. >>> >>>Brian. >>> >>>_________________________________________________________________ >>>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 >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 Jul 7 09:35:43 2003 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 JAA24305 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:35:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZW9D-0000bk-E7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 09:35:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67DZFK8002330 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:35:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZW9D-0000bV-6C for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 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 JAA24297; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:35:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZW9B-0004BT-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 09:35:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZW9A-0004BQ-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 09:35:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZW8z-0000Zc-Ra; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 09:35:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZW8x-0000ZC-7K for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 09:34:59 -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 JAA24293 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:34:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZW8v-0004BN-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 09:34:57 -0400 Received: from mxsmta01.inithost.com ([209.235.30.103] helo=mxsmta01.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZW8u-0004BK-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 09:34:56 -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 <20030707133652.YZCS6624.mxsmta01.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com> for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:36:52 -0400 Message-ID: <3F097703.7070305@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 CC: "'Asrg@ietf.org'" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Did you see this about Cyberangel.nl - a spammer... Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 07 Jul 2003 09:34:59 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.cyberangels.nl/evidence/mailfile.html _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 10:59:57 2003 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 KAA28596 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 10:59:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZXSj-0005J5-CT for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 10:59:30 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67ExTTG020395 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 10:59:29 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZXSj-0005Is-9W for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 10:59:29 -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 KAA28540; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 10:59:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZXSg-00059I-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 10:59:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZXSf-00059F-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 10:59:25 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZXSH-0005GB-Fp; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 10:59:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZXRj-0005FW-6w for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 10:58:27 -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 KAA28475 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 10:58:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZXRg-00058B-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 10:58:24 -0400 Received: from [66.77.68.9] (helo=mailgate2.purespeed.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZXRf-00057i-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 10:58:23 -0400 Received: from HOMEY (ip68-100-19-197.nv.nv.cox.net [68.100.19.197]) by mailgate2.purespeed.com (Postfix Relay Hub) with SMTP id C2536BBEB; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 10:49:53 -0400 (EDT) From: "Eric Dean" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , , "'Paul Judge'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] 4. Survey of Solutions - Consent Model 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: <5.2.0.9.2.20030704175218.00bc4e90@std5.imagineis.com> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 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: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:01:20 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Further defining taxonomy and models are always of value to a research group. How does this differ from a challenge/response system? > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Yakov > Shafranovich > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 5:54 PM > To: bob@wyman.us; 'Paul Judge'; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 4. Survey of Solutions - Consent Model > > > I am thinking of reformatting the document along the lines of RFC 2778 > which defines a model for instant messaging. Tell me what you think. > > Yakov > > At 01:50 PM 7/4/2003 -0400, Bob Wyman wrote: > > >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > >I wrote up an document on the consent model > > I think it would be good to strip from the document the general > >discussion of the spam problem and focus on the technical framework. One > >can assume that the nature of the problem is well understood -- the > >"evils" of spam are well-known problems. As it stands now, the > >discussion of motivation for the proposal simply makes the document much > >larger without really adding much. > > Also, while I would certainly include a short (one-paragraph?) > >section on motivation and ensure that the paragraph mentions spam, I > >think the document should focus on "consent" not "spam." Ideally, spam > >would only be explicitly mentioned in a short description of motivation. > >The rest of the document should only talk about consent. The challenge > >of the document is to define how consent is expressed and managed. Such > >a framework can have value dealing with more problems than simply > >providing part of a solution to the spam problem. > > In general, I think it is not useful to quote other documents at > >length. Given hypertext, we're able to easily and effectively reference > >other documents without burdening every document with large extracts of > >others. Ideally, the consent framework would be a concise description > >where every line had value on its own and wasn't simply a repetition of > >data found elsewhere. The simpler the document is, the easier it will be > >for people to understand it and evaluate it. > > I think there are some labeling problems in the current > >document. For instance, a "lookup in a realtime black list" is not a > >"policy enforcement mechanism." Rather it is a means for determining > >some attribute of a message which can then be fed into the policy > >enforcement mechanism. (i.e. Message has the "sent from blacklisted > >node" attribute. Thus, the enforcement mechanism -- which is distinct > >from the mechanism that did the blacklist lookup -- decides to reject > >the message or put it in a graybox.) The same comment applies to most of > >the other things mentioned in this section. They are all means to > >discover attributes of a message -- it is only anecdotal that most > >implementations of these methods are bound to specific enforcement > >policies. The framework should clearly identify the distinctions between > >components of a system. > > > > bob wyman > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 7 11:12:38 2003 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 LAA29191 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:12:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZXez-0006Rf-Ig for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:12:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67FC9N5024763 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:12:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZXez-0006RB-E1 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:12:09 -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 LAA29175; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:12:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZXey-0005K7-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:12:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZXex-0005K3-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:12:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZXeq-0006L0-1X; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:12:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZXds-0006Jl-0n for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:11:00 -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 LAA29130 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:10:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZXdp-0005J7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:10:57 -0400 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZXdo-0005IN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:10:56 -0400 Received: from BBFUJIP.brandenburg.com (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h67FDoF10796 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 08:13:58 -0700 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/11) Personal Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <253151611.20030707171026@brandenburg.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Technical Considerations (updated draft) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707020557.00ba24f0@solidmatrix.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707020557.00ba24f0@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: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:10:26 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov, YS> An updated draft of "Technical Considerations for Spam Control Mechanisms" YS> has been posted to the IETF Internet Drafts directory. It can be found at: YS> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt Thanks for posting a notice about the revision. The revisions are substantial, including reorganization of the sections. The document is intended to help two activities: 1. Develop a standard vocabulary and framework for talking about proposed solutions, and 2. Develop a means of evaluating proposals. The chart at the appendix is specifically intended for goal #2. It would be really excellent for folks to try to use it, for evaluating various proposals, and then comment on the exercise. First, it might actually help us do better evaluations. Seonc, it definitely will help us understand how to improve the evaluation guidelines. 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 Mon Jul 7 11:12:42 2003 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 LAA29207 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:12:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZXez-0006RZ-HU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:12:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67FC9eT024754 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:12:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZXez-0006RA-Cn for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:12:09 -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 LAA29176; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:12:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZXey-0005KA-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:12:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZXex-0005K4-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:12:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZXeq-0006La-E4; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:12:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZXdw-0006KU-Om for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:11:04 -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 LAA29137 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:11:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZXdu-0005JP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:11:02 -0400 Received: from isdn324.s.netic.de ([212.9.163.68] helo=mail.enyo.de) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZXdt-0005J4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:11:01 -0400 Received: from [212.9.189.171] (helo=deneb.enyo.de) by mail.enyo.de with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZXdg-0000eV-I5; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:10:48 +0200 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.20) id 19ZXdg-00009g-0g; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:10:48 +0200 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Steven F Siirila , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] DNSSEC not deployable References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D22B9@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: Florian Weimer In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D22B9@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> (Phillip Hallam-Baker's message of "Fri, 4 Jul 2003 07:02:11 -0700") Message-ID: <87n0fqcqyv.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: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:10:48 +0200 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" writes: > Unless the IESG decides to intervene to reverse this situation > ubiquitous deployment of DNSSEC will not be possible using the > IETF approved specification. To be honest, I doubt that the technical problems are relevant. There is simply no application for DNSSEC. Of course, it's nice to get rid of the insecure DNS transport protocol with its tiny request ID, but this doesn't warrant the incredible complexity of DNSSEC. There are name-based attacks, of course (often employing the "@" trick in http:// URLs, in other cases suitable domain names are registered), but DNSSEC wont prevent any of them. Now mail control could be *the* application that pushes DNSSEC, but the current state seems to be that no single mail control solution will evolve, and in a situation of multiple, competing solution attempts, a DNSSEC requirement is a huge disadvantage. (Anyway, for the level of mail control we are aiming at, the security of the current DNS is probably sufficient.) > Regretably the situation is no better with respect to BGP security. Same here. Even if some Secure BGP variant arrives which resolves the trusted intermediates problem, the corresponding trusted registration authority for relating ASNs, prefixes, and public keys won't come into existence without government regulation. Look at the state of current WHOIS data to get a glimpse on the future. I bet that many ISPs will automatically certify customer announcements, to save money and avoid scaring away customers. What's worse, there are advanced frauds an ISP is unlikely to detect. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 11:55:23 2003 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 LAA00986 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:55:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZYKN-0000VX-D6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:54:55 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67FstVi001945 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:54:55 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZYKN-0000VI-9v for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:54:55 -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 LAA00963; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:54:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZYKM-0005t2-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:54:54 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZYKL-0005sx-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:54:53 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZYJU-0000NL-LR; Mon, 07 Jul 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 19ZYIu-0000Kj-LY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:53:24 -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 LAA00876 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:53:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZYIt-0005r2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:53:23 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZYIs-0005qb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:53:22 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:52:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:40:30 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Florian Weimer'" , "'Hallam-Baker, Phillip'" Cc: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'Steven F Siirila'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: 6 - Solutions - Dependencies of DNSSEC ( was RE: [Asrg] DNSSEC no t deployable) 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, 7 Jul 2003 11:40:28 -0400 This is not the forum to debate reasons for the lack of deployment of DNSSEC. Solutions that rely on DNS should, of course, understand the limitations that the current system imposes. However, the lack of DNSSEC does not introduce a substantial risk for many of the proposed systems. > -----Original Message----- > From: Florian Weimer [mailto:fw@deneb.enyo.de] > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 11:11 AM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip > Cc: 'Yakov Shafranovich'; Steven F Siirila; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] DNSSEC not deployable > > > "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" writes: > > > Unless the IESG decides to intervene to reverse this situation > > ubiquitous deployment of DNSSEC will not be possible using the > > IETF approved specification. > > To be honest, I doubt that the technical problems are relevant. > > There is simply no application for DNSSEC. Of course, it's > nice to get rid of the insecure DNS transport protocol with > its tiny request ID, but this doesn't warrant the incredible > complexity of DNSSEC. There are name-based attacks, of course > (often employing the "@" trick in http:// URLs, in other > cases suitable domain names are registered), but DNSSEC wont > prevent any of them. > > Now mail control could be *the* application that pushes > DNSSEC, but the current state seems to be that no single mail > control solution will evolve, and in a situation of multiple, > competing solution attempts, a DNSSEC requirement is a huge > disadvantage. (Anyway, for the level of mail control we are > aiming at, the security of the current DNS is probably sufficient.) > > > Regretably the situation is no better with respect to BGP security. > > Same here. Even if some Secure BGP variant arrives which > resolves the trusted intermediates problem, the corresponding > trusted registration authority for relating ASNs, prefixes, > and public keys won't come into existence without government > regulation. Look at the state of current WHOIS data to get a > glimpse on the future. I bet that many ISPs will > automatically certify customer announcements, to save money > and avoid scaring away customers. What's worse, there are > advanced frauds an ISP is unlikely to detect. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 7 12:55:48 2003 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 MAA03587 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 12:55:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZZGr-00055W-Io for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:55:21 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67GtLPE019554 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 12:55:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZZGr-00055J-FS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:55:21 -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 MAA03574; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 12:55:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZZGo-0006kZ-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:55:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZZGn-0006kW-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:55:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZZGY-00052J-4C; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:55:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZZFb-00051J-QF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:54:03 -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 MAA03543 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 12:53:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZZFa-0006jj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:54:02 -0400 Received: from 000-246-167.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.201.42] helo=68.27.201.42 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZZFU-0006je-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:53:57 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707125254.00bb1888@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Eric Dean" , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] 4. Survey of Solutions - Consent Model In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030704175218.00bc4e90@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, 07 Jul 2003 12:53:32 -0400 A C/R system is one of the tools that fit into the model. At 11:01 AM 7/7/2003 -0400, Eric Dean wrote: >Further defining taxonomy and models are always of value to a research >group. > >How does this differ from a challenge/response system? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Yakov > > Shafranovich > > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 5:54 PM > > To: bob@wyman.us; 'Paul Judge'; asrg@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 4. Survey of Solutions - Consent Model > > > > > > I am thinking of reformatting the document along the lines of RFC 2778 > > which defines a model for instant messaging. Tell me what you think. > > > > Yakov > > > > At 01:50 PM 7/4/2003 -0400, Bob Wyman wrote: > > > > >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > > >I wrote up an document on the consent model > > > I think it would be good to strip from the document the general > > >discussion of the spam problem and focus on the technical framework. One > > >can assume that the nature of the problem is well understood -- the > > >"evils" of spam are well-known problems. As it stands now, the > > >discussion of motivation for the proposal simply makes the document much > > >larger without really adding much. > > > Also, while I would certainly include a short (one-paragraph?) > > >section on motivation and ensure that the paragraph mentions spam, I > > >think the document should focus on "consent" not "spam." Ideally, spam > > >would only be explicitly mentioned in a short description of motivation. > > >The rest of the document should only talk about consent. The challenge > > >of the document is to define how consent is expressed and managed. Such > > >a framework can have value dealing with more problems than simply > > >providing part of a solution to the spam problem. > > > In general, I think it is not useful to quote other documents at > > >length. Given hypertext, we're able to easily and effectively reference > > >other documents without burdening every document with large extracts of > > >others. Ideally, the consent framework would be a concise description > > >where every line had value on its own and wasn't simply a repetition of > > >data found elsewhere. The simpler the document is, the easier it will be > > >for people to understand it and evaluate it. > > > I think there are some labeling problems in the current > > >document. For instance, a "lookup in a realtime black list" is not a > > >"policy enforcement mechanism." Rather it is a means for determining > > >some attribute of a message which can then be fed into the policy > > >enforcement mechanism. (i.e. Message has the "sent from blacklisted > > >node" attribute. Thus, the enforcement mechanism -- which is distinct > > >from the mechanism that did the blacklist lookup -- decides to reject > > >the message or put it in a graybox.) The same comment applies to most of > > >the other things mentioned in this section. They are all means to > > >discover attributes of a message -- it is only anecdotal that most > > >implementations of these methods are bound to specific enforcement > > >policies. The framework should clearly identify the distinctions between > > >components of a system. > > > > > > bob wyman > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Jul 7 12:59:36 2003 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 MAA03708 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 12:59:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZZKW-0005L8-M0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:59:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67Gx8rx020520 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 12:59:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZZKW-0005Kt-Ip for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:59:08 -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 MAA03690; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 12:59:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZZKU-0006mg-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:59:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZZKU-0006md-00; Mon, 07 Jul 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 19ZZKP-0005Hq-6n; Mon, 07 Jul 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 19ZZKM-0005He-Ez for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:58:58 -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 MAA03685 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 12:58:54 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZZKK-0006mZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:58:56 -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 19ZZKJ-0006mW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:58:55 -0400 Received: (cpmta 28954 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2003 09:58:54 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.72) with SMTP; 7 Jul 2003 09:58:54 -0700 X-Sent: 7 Jul 2003 16:58:54 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:57:31 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:26:38 -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 MAA03686 Subject: [Asrg] [IP] A Simpler, More Personal Key to Protect Online Messages Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 07 Jul 2003 12:26:38 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I thought this was interesting... any implications for us here? One obvious issue is how this handles things like mailing lists and diges= ts and=20 such which group messages from many different original senders, and where= each=20 original sender has no idea of the E-mail address of the ultimate destina= tion=20 recipients. (Would it be sufficient for the list software to decode and=20 re-encode messages being processed? But then they'd need to re-encode=20 separately for each digest recipient...) <---- Begin Forwarded Message ----> Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 04:10:17 -0400 Subject: [IP] A Simpler, More Personal Key to Protect Online Messages From: Dave Farber To: ip Reply-To: dave@farber.net ------ Forwarded Message From: "the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow" Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:46:24 +0200 To: "Dave E-mail Pamphleteer Farber" Subject: A Simpler, More Personal Key to Protect Online Messages A Simpler, More Personal Key to Protect Online Messages By JOHN MARKOFF The New York Times PALO ALTO, Calif., July 6 =97 A Silicon Valley start-up company on Tuesda= y plans to unveil a new approach to sending secure electronic messages and protecting data, a simpler alternative to current encryption systems, whi= ch use long digital numbers, called public keys. The new company, Voltage Security, which is based here, instead uses anot= her unique identifier as the public key: the message recipient's e-mail addre= ss. Under the Voltage system, the sender of a message uses software that converts the recipient's e-mail address into a number and then encrypts t= he message using a mathematical formula. The recipient can then use a simila= r formula in conjunction with a secret key to decode the message. The compa= ny says it would be almost impossible for an eavesdropper to use the formula. The software can be used with several existing PC e-mail programs. --snip-- http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/07/technology/07CODE.html =3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D= -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D- geoff.goodfellow@iconia.com * Prague - CZ * telephone +420 603 706 558 "success is getting what you want & happiness is wanting what you get" http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/01/biztech/articles/17drop.html http://www.livejournal.com/users/a2gsg/ ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-peopl= e/ <---- End Forwarded Message ----> 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 Mon Jul 7 13:14:44 2003 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 NAA04135 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:14:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZZZ7-0006Ie-4I for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:14:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67HEDHF024211 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:14:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZZZ7-0006IQ-1B for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:14:13 -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 NAA04111; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:14:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZZZ5-0006xG-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:14:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZZZ4-0006xD-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:14:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZZYu-0006BM-NA; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:14:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZZYG-0006Az-Bd for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:13:20 -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 NAA04081 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:13:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZZYE-0006wM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:13:18 -0400 Received: from mnr1.microneil.com ([216.88.36.96]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZZYD-0006vy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:13:17 -0400 Received: by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix, from userid 93) id CD7D929C07B; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:12:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MicroNeil.com (mail.microneil.com [216.88.36.161]) by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 920C129C03B for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:12:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MNR01 [216.88.36.10] by MicroNeil.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.05) id A9EF47C40112; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:12:15 -0400 From: "Madscientist" To: "'ASRG list'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 4. Survey of Solutions - Consent Model Message-ID: <008201c344aa$e8fade70$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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707021850.00ba24f0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Declude-Spoolname: Da9ef112.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: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:12:13 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >-----Original Message----- >From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On >Behalf Of Yakov Shafranovich >CONSENT - an expression of wanting to receive specific email >LACK OF CONSENT - an expression of not wanting to receive >specific email or >absence of prior CONSENT > >I agree with you that CONSENT has not been defined properly, I >am wondering >how we should redefine it properly.Maybe something like this: > >CONSENT - an expression of wanting to receive email from a >specific SENDER LACK OF CONSENT - an expression of not wanting >to receive email from a >specific SENDER or absence of prior CONSENT for that SENDER > >However, we need to take into account filters which check not >for specific >senders, but rather for specific types of email. Perhaps the two >definitions above should be combined. In our R&D of Message Sniffer we've developed a model for consent which fits very well in this discussion. I recommend that the ASRG adopt this generalization of our model for defining consent: There seem to be really 4 cases, so perhaps CONSENT should be defined within these 4 cases: 1. CONSENT - a direct expression of wanting to receive email from a sender. 2. SOFT CONSENT - an indirect expression of wanting to receive email from a sender. 3. SOFT DENIED CONSENT - an indirect expression of wanting not to receive email from a sender. 4. DENIED CONSENT - a direct expression of wanting not to receive email from a sender. NOTE: 2 and 3 are required to handle anonymous senders. In the above also: Direct Expression = an explicit white rule or black rule. Indirect Expression = expression by the evaluation of some mechanism chosen by the recipient including any kind of filtering engine. Sender = defined by any combination of Sender IP or email route, Sender address, or other Authentication mechanisms. The recipient may define any of these that may be required to define a particular sender, and may also define which authentication mechanisms (if any) are acceptable. If all of the above are acceptable then a policy of consent could be established and utilized in a very clear way: FIRST: Each inbound message is evaluated first against the sender policy to define "Sender" for the sake of evaluation. This definition may include the "Unknown Sender" which would limit policy evaluation to "SOFT" policies (2 and 3 above). Note also that "authentication mechanisms" may be defined by the recipient to support DNSbl or other services such as Bonded Sender mechanisms, or any other mechanisms that may arise. SECOND: The message is then evaluated against the consent policy to define the case that matches the message. This includes (in case 2 and 3) the application of any evaulation mechanisms that the user may define to evaluate the content of the message or evaluate it's other characteristics. THIRD: A specific action mapped to the identified case in the policy should be executed. For example, reject the message, submit the message to some process, redirect the message to some mailbox, some combination of actions. --- As SOFT evaluations can be difficult to quantify and must be open to new mechanisms that become available in future I recommend that a "Consent Definition Language" be developed that provides for specific actions based on the evaluation of the message against the policy, and that in SOFT cases (2 and 3) the "Consent Definition Language" be extensible to take into account results that may be returned from the soft evaulation mechanisms. For example, some "tests" may return weights, others may return probabilities, others may return categories of content, others may return specific heuristics that fail. However, in general there structure of a working policy model tends to be hierarchiacal so an XML based framework can be very efficient. As XML is naturally extensible then so would a "Consent Definition Language (CDL)" based on XML. --- In the interests of sharing, proofing, and evaluating CDL based policies there should be a mechanism for defining standarized representations of tests. For example, specific DNSbl tests that are "well known" may have names names defined for them where those names would be adopted by the community in the same way well known ports are adopted for services. Any such namimg conventions should be an enhancemnet rather than a requirement in the CDL. For example, if a recipient wishes to leverage a DNSbl (or other service) that does not have a "well known name" then the definition of the test in the policy should be clear and consistent and no more difficult to implement in the CDL than any other DNSbl. Similar guildelines should be in place for the implementation other SOFT mechanicsms that might be used for: authentication (defining the sender), or developing SOFT CONCENT (such as filtering systems such as Message Sniffer, Spam Assassin, Bogo Filter, and others...) --- Based on personal experience, the framework defined above _should_ be able to encoumpass all of the current and proposed mechanisms used for curbing abuse without significant difficulty or complexity. If my description is unclear the I could create a generalized draft policy to illustrate. Such a draft might then be extended and co-evolved with an RFC defining the consent model. (I don't have the resources to take on the full task, but I could certainly help.) _M Pete McNeil (Madscientist) President, MicroNeil Research Corporation Chief SortMonster (www.sortmonster.com) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 13:19:36 2003 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 NAA04291 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:19:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZZds-0006h7-C7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:19:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67HJ827025727 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:19:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZZds-0006gs-7G for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:19:08 -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 NAA04272; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:19:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZZdq-00071v-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:19:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZZdp-00071s-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:19:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZZdl-0006dj-6R; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:19:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZZdN-0006dP-6J for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:18:37 -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 NAA04264 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:18:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZZdL-00071X-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:18:35 -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 19ZZdK-00071N-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:18:34 -0400 Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h67HH5mu012763; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:17:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200307071717.h67HH5mu012763@nic-naa.net> To: Paul Judge cc: "'Florian Weimer'" , "'Hallam-Baker, Phillip'" , "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'Steven F Siirila'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" , brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: 6 - Solutions - Dependencies of DNSSEC ( was RE: [Asrg] DNSSEC no t deployable) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:40:28 EDT." 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: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:17:05 -0400 > This is not the forum to debate reasons for the lack of deployment of > DNSSEC. Deployment issues are not "research". Process issues of dnsext are not "research". > Solutions that rely on DNS should, of course, understand the limitations > that the current system imposes. However, the lack of DNSSEC does not > introduce a substantial risk for many of the proposed systems. Operational errors by existing operators of existing DNS is the norm, not the exception. A venue exists for discussion of operational issues for DNS -- dnsop. Eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 13:45:47 2003 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 NAA05002 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:45:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Za38-0008F0-4w for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:45:19 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67HjESJ031672 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:45:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Za38-0008El-0i for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:45:14 -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 NAA04995; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:45:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Za35-0007Pn-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:45:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Za35-0007Pk-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:45:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Za2v-0008Bj-LV; Mon, 07 Jul 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 19Za2K-00085L-8P for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:44:24 -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 NAA04983 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:44:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Za2I-0007PC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:44:22 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Za2H-0007P8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:44:21 -0400 Received: from [65.177.168.96] (account nazgul HELO [63.186.233.77]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2518779; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:44:15 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030707005414.B22087@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> <20030630022018.A2266@m433> <20030702165715.A6542@m433> <20030704110751.A10667@m433> <20030707005414.B22087@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, 7 Jul 2003 12:08:06 -0400 At 12:54 AM -0400 7/7/03, Walter Dnes wrote: > I would suggest web-forms for customer contact. As a customer, I despise them. So as a vendor I'm not likely to want to rely on them. Why don't I like them? - inability to contact multiple vendors in one message - no record of the message I sent in my outbox - unable to use them offline - no easy way to keep vendor contact information in my address book - repeated information I have to enter every time I converse with the vendor They put all the convenience on the vendor, and none with the customer. -- 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 Jul 7 13:57:44 2003 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 NAA05348 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:57:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZaEk-0000ZT-UV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:57:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67HvEZ0002189 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:57:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZaEk-0000ZE-RV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:57:14 -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 NAA05322; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:57:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZaEi-0007bw-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:57:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZaEh-0007bt-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:57:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZaEY-0000X4-06; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:57:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZaEM-0000Wd-2x for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:56:50 -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 NAA05310 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:56:47 -0400 (EDT) From: william@elan.net Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZaEJ-0007bK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:56:47 -0400 Received: from sokol.elan.net ([216.151.192.200]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZaEI-0007bF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:56:46 -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 h67FNWEW024727 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 08:23:32 -0700 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h67FNWuI024723 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 08:23:32 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal: Separate ISP(s) for "guaranteed delivery" of email 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: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 08:23:31 -0700 (PDT) Most contact webforms in reality send email to one or more persons at the company anyway. The question is that companies do not want to provide their email addresses on website (harvesting and other reasons) and trust what has come from their website rather from direct email. So the problem is in trying to extend trust that vendor see from their webform to email sender. One such mechanism is to have vendors display to the users on website email addresses such as "sales-xxxxx@domain.com" where xxxxxx corresponds to sessionid of the visitor to their website and exist for certain small period of time. Because session ids can be unique and with 8 hex characters there can be more then enough of them to not be repeated for a long time while the actual email (for example "sales-18f83a73@elan.net") is not too long to not allow user to write it down or copy it over to the mail client software. Relaying on session ids will also allow to trace those who harvest and immediatly send spam as you can then look at the logs and see what ip address was responsible. On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 12:54 AM -0400 7/7/03, Walter Dnes wrote: > > I would suggest web-forms for customer contact. > > As a customer, I despise them. So as a vendor I'm not likely to want > to rely on them. > > Why don't I like them? > > - inability to contact multiple vendors in one message > - no record of the message I sent in my outbox > - unable to use them offline > - no easy way to keep vendor contact information in my address book > - repeated information I have to enter every time I converse with the vendor > > They put all the convenience on the vendor, and none with the customer. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 14:09:46 2003 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 OAA05786 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 14:09:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZaQP-0001ia-IS for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 14:09:18 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67I9HPb006598 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 14:09:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZaQP-0001iL-EE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 14:09:17 -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 OAA05761; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 14:09:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZaQM-00001R-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 14:09:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZaQM-00001O-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 14:09:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZaQ9-0001fJ-8C; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 14:09:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZaPS-0001ea-9y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 14:08:18 -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 OAA05729 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 14:08:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZaPP-00000G-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 14:08:16 -0400 Received: from mxsmta01.inithost.com ([209.235.30.103] helo=mxsmta01.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZaPP-000007-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 14:08:15 -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 <20030707181005.CVSZ6624.mxsmta01.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 14:10:05 -0400 Message-ID: <3F09B70A.4040008@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: william@elan.net CC: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal: Separate ISP(s) for "guaranteed delivery" of email 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: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 14:08:10 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit But this doesn't provide any kind of guaranteed delivery. Once you inject email into the equation all bets are off. Chuck Wegrzyn william@elan.net wrote: >Most contact webforms in reality send email to one or more persons at the >company anyway. The question is that companies do not want to provide >their email addresses on website (harvesting and other reasons) and trust >what has come from their website rather from direct email. > >So the problem is in trying to extend trust that vendor see from their >webform to email sender. One such mechanism is to have vendors display to >the users on website email addresses such as "sales-xxxxx@domain.com" >where xxxxxx corresponds to sessionid of the visitor to their website and >exist for certain small period of time. Because session ids can be unique >and with 8 hex characters there can be more then enough of them to not be >repeated for a long time while the actual email (for example >"sales-18f83a73@elan.net") is not too long to not allow user to write >it down or copy it over to the mail client software. Relaying on session >ids will also allow to trace those who harvest and immediatly send spam >as you can then look at the logs and see what ip address was responsible. > >On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > > > >>At 12:54 AM -0400 7/7/03, Walter Dnes wrote: >> >> >>> I would suggest web-forms for customer contact. >>> >>> >>As a customer, I despise them. So as a vendor I'm not likely to want >>to rely on them. >> >>Why don't I like them? >> >>- inability to contact multiple vendors in one message >>- no record of the message I sent in my outbox >>- unable to use them offline >>- no easy way to keep vendor contact information in my address book >>- repeated information I have to enter every time I converse with the vendor >> >>They put all the convenience on the vendor, and none with the customer. >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jul 7 14:43:43 2003 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 OAA07304 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 14:43:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZaxI-0004Cp-5Z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 14:43:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67IhG4g016161 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 14:43:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZaxI-0004Ca-2a for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 14:43:16 -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 OAA07292; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 14:43:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZaxF-0000cf-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 14:43:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZaxE-0000cc-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 14:43:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zax3-0004AW-IC; Mon, 07 Jul 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 19ZawR-0004AE-7W for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 14:42:23 -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 OAA07280 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 14:42:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZawO-0000c7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 14:42:20 -0400 Received: from 000-246-167.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.201.42] helo=68.27.201.42 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZawK-0000bv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 14:42:17 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707140852.00b5b968@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] [IP] A Simpler, More Personal Key to Protect Online Messages 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 OAA07281 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 07 Jul 2003 14:08:54 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Its described in detail at: http://crypto.stanford.edu/ibe/ At 12:26 PM 7/7/2003 0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: >I thought this was interesting... any implications for us here? > >One obvious issue is how this handles things like mailing lists and=20 >digests and >such which group messages from many different original senders, and wher= e=20 >each >original sender has no idea of the E-mail address of the ultimate destin= ation >recipients. (Would it be sufficient for the list software to decode and >re-encode messages being processed? But then they'd need to re-encode >separately for each digest recipient...) > > > ><---- Begin Forwarded Message ----> >Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 04:10:17 -0400 >Subject: [IP] A Simpler, More Personal Key to Protect Online Messages >From: Dave Farber >To: ip >Reply-To: dave@farber.net > > >------ Forwarded Message >From: "the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow" >Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:46:24 +0200 >To: "Dave E-mail Pamphleteer Farber" >Subject: A Simpler, More Personal Key to Protect Online Messages > >A Simpler, More Personal Key to Protect Online Messages > >By JOHN MARKOFF >The New York Times > >PALO ALTO, Calif., July 6 =97 A Silicon Valley start-up company on Tuesd= ay >plans to unveil a new approach to sending secure electronic messages and >protecting data, a simpler alternative to current encryption systems, wh= ich >use long digital numbers, called public keys. > >The new company, Voltage Security, which is based here, instead uses ano= ther >unique identifier as the public key: the message recipient's e-mail addr= ess. > >Under the Voltage system, the sender of a message uses software that >converts the recipient's e-mail address into a number and then encrypts = the >message using a mathematical formula. The recipient can then use a simil= ar >formula in conjunction with a secret key to decode the message. The comp= any >says it would be almost impossible for an eavesdropper to use the formul= a. >The software can be used with several existing PC e-mail programs. > >--snip-- > >http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/07/technology/07CODE.html > >=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-= =3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D- >geoff.goodfellow@iconia.com * Prague - CZ * telephone +420 603 706 558 >"success is getting what you want & happiness is wanting what you get" >http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/01/biztech/articles/17drop.html >http://www.livejournal.com/users/a2gsg/ > > > >------ End of Forwarded Message > >------------------------------------- >Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-peop= le/ > > ><---- End Forwarded Message ----> > >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 "repres= ent". >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 Mon Jul 7 15:01:50 2003 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 PAA08327 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:01:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZbEp-0005Jd-5k for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:01:23 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67J1Ntn020428 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:01:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZbEp-0005JP-1I for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:01:23 -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 PAA08311; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:01:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZbEm-00011T-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:01:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZbEl-00011Q-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:01:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZbEU-0005HV-Oe; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:01:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZbEI-0005H0-Ne for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:00:50 -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 PAA08273 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:00:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZbEF-00010n-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:00:47 -0400 Received: from isdn259.s.netic.de ([212.9.163.3] helo=mail.enyo.de) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZbEE-00010j-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:00:47 -0400 Received: from [212.9.189.171] (helo=deneb.enyo.de) by mail.enyo.de with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZbE5-0001AF-70 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:00:37 +0200 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.20) id 19ZbE4-0000Ik-NV for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:00:36 +0200 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Florian Weimer Mail-Followup-To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <87ptkmb1rf.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 Subject: [Asrg] draft-crocker-spam-techconsider Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 07 Jul 2003 21:00:36 +0200 In general, I think the intention of the document and the document itself is *very* helpful. Regarding the definition of "spam", I think it's important to note that other things are reducing the usability of email. While spam control cannot aim for a complete solution to all email problems, it seems to me that the majority of schemes can address annoying (often: bulk) mail messages beyond what's commonly summed up as "spam". For example, reliable sender tracing might help to track down MTAs sending erroneous bounces (to header addresses) on huge mailing lists, and many schemes also work against worms propagating via email. A further evaluation point (or a more specific way of looking at the costs) is required. On the Internet of today, ISPs and ISP personnel who try to limit the amount of spam originating from their networks are punished by multiple sides (spam fighting requires additional hardware and staff, and you mainly reduce your customer base)---and yet those who invest in spam control mechanisms despite all the disadvantages (here I'm still talking about outgoing email) receive no bonus by the current control mechanisms at the receiver side if something goes wrong (and you can never quite avoid this, of course). On the other hand, I think that systems which rely just on cooperation by the receiving side or the originating end user discard a lot of potential. The fact that some ISPs (well, usually a few crazy employees) fight spam at the originating side suggests that there are resources available, even though these efforts have not a sufficient impact on the global spam level at the moment. Maybe this leads to another evaluation criterion: who can support the system and whose cooperation is required? Finally, a rule of thumb I find pretty handy at times: does the system actually reduce the amount of email that has to be transmitted and read by end users? Fighting spam by generating more mail messages is quite insane, but many people think its a solution because they chose a restricted, local point of view. Some typographical errors: Search for "" (verbatim), you'll see the problem. I guess "UsageOnce" is a typo, too. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 15:05:34 2003 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 PAA08648 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:05:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZbIO-0005Ts-AW for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:05:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67J54T8021062 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:05:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZbIO-0005Td-3f for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:05:04 -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 PAA08579; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:05:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZbIL-00015Y-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:05:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZbIK-00015V-00; Mon, 07 Jul 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 19ZbIL-0005QZ-3S; Mon, 07 Jul 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 19ZbHU-0005PB-TT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:04:08 -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 PAA08478 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:04:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZbHR-00014b-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:04:05 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZbHQ-00014Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:04:05 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h67J43ch000877; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 12:04:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 12:04:03 -0700 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D22E8@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'gep2@terabites.com'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] [IP] A Simpler, More Personal Key to Protect Online Me ssages 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, 7 Jul 2003 12:03:58 -0700 This sounds like it is an identity based encryption scheme although it could also be snakeoil. You can think of this as a scheme where someones public key is a simple function of their email address. This means that there is no need for directory infrastructure etc. The drawback is that to make the scheme work you have to have a way of distributing peoples private keys from a central issuer. There is no way to revoke public keys either. Most people seem to want to generate their own keypairs and never reveal the private key. In practice running a directory infrastructure is not a real problem. Running x500 is a problem, but dns srv records pointing to an xkms server would work fine. -----Original Message----- From: Yakov Shafranovich Sent: Mon Jul 07 11:44:05 2003 To: gep2@terabites.com; asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] [IP] A Simpler, More Personal Key to Protect Online Messages Its described in detail at: http://crypto.stanford.edu/ibe/ At 12:26 PM 7/7/2003 0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: >I thought this was interesting... any implications for us here? > >One obvious issue is how this handles things like mailing lists and >digests and >such which group messages from many different original senders, and where >each >original sender has no idea of the E-mail address of the ultimate destination >recipients. (Would it be sufficient for the list software to decode and >re-encode messages being processed? But then they'd need to re-encode >separately for each digest recipient...) > > > ><---- Begin Forwarded Message ----> >Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 04:10:17 -0400 >Subject: [IP] A Simpler, More Personal Key to Protect Online Messages >From: Dave Farber >To: ip >Reply-To: dave@farber.net > > >------ Forwarded Message >From: "the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow" >Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:46:24 +0200 >To: "Dave E-mail Pamphleteer Farber" >Subject: A Simpler, More Personal Key to Protect Online Messages > >A Simpler, More Personal Key to Protect Online Messages > >By JOHN MARKOFF >The New York Times > >PALO ALTO, Calif., July 6 - A Silicon Valley start-up company on Tuesday >plans to unveil a new approach to sending secure electronic messages and >protecting data, a simpler alternative to current encryption systems, which >use long digital numbers, called public keys. > >The new company, Voltage Security, which is based here, instead uses another >unique identifier as the public key: the message recipient's e-mail address. > >Under the Voltage system, the sender of a message uses software that >converts the recipient's e-mail address into a number and then encrypts the >message using a mathematical formula. The recipient can then use a similar >formula in conjunction with a secret key to decode the message. The company >says it would be almost impossible for an eavesdropper to use the formula. >The software can be used with several existing PC e-mail programs. > >--snip-- > >http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/07/technology/07CODE.html > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >geoff.goodfellow@iconia.com * Prague - CZ * telephone +420 603 706 558 >"success is getting what you want & happiness is wanting what you get" >http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/01/biztech/articles/17drop.html >http://www.livejournal.com/users/a2gsg/ > > > >------ End of Forwarded Message > >------------------------------------- >Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ > > ><---- End Forwarded Message ----> > >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 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 15:47:36 2003 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 PAA11549 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:47:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zbx6-00082V-9t for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:47:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67Jl8cu030899 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:47:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zbx6-00082I-6l for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:47:08 -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 PAA11543; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:47:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zbx4-0001ho-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:47:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zbx4-0001hl-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:47:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zbwz-0007y1-KF; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:47:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zbwb-0007xb-B5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:46:37 -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 PAA11528 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:46:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZbwZ-0001hX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:46:35 -0400 Received: from 000-234-283.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.154.96] helo=68.27.154.96 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZbwS-0001hO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:46:29 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707154555.00b5b968@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , "'gep2@terabites.com'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] [IP] A Simpler, More Personal Key to Protect Online Me ssages 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, 07 Jul 2003 15:45:57 -0400 The original NY Times article has this relevant quote from Bruce Schneier: "A second challenge will be that in an increasingly online world, public-key systems have become far easier to use, said Bruce Schneier, a cryptography expert who is founder and chief technical officer of Counterpane Internet Security. "Nowadays its easy to look up a key," he said. "That has been solved by ubiquitous Internet access." At 12:03 PM 7/7/2003 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >This sounds like it is an identity based encryption scheme although it could >also be snakeoil. > >You can think of this as a scheme where someones public key is a simple >function of their email address. This means that there is no need for >directory infrastructure etc. > >The drawback is that to make the scheme work you have to have a way of >distributing peoples private keys from a central issuer. There is no way to >revoke public keys either. > >Most people seem to want to generate their own keypairs and never reveal the >private key. In practice running a directory infrastructure is not a real >problem. Running x500 is a problem, but dns srv records pointing to an xkms >server would work fine. > > > > -----Original Message----- >From: Yakov Shafranovich >Sent: Mon Jul 07 11:44:05 2003 >To: gep2@terabites.com; asrg@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Asrg] [IP] A Simpler, More Personal Key to Protect >Online Messages > >Its described in detail at: > >http://crypto.stanford.edu/ibe/ > >At 12:26 PM 7/7/2003 0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > > >I thought this was interesting... any implications for us here? > > > >One obvious issue is how this handles things like mailing lists and > >digests and > >such which group messages from many different original senders, and where > >each > >original sender has no idea of the E-mail address of the ultimate >destination > >recipients. (Would it be sufficient for the list software to decode and > >re-encode messages being processed? But then they'd need to re-encode > >separately for each digest recipient...) > > > > > > > ><---- Begin Forwarded Message ----> > >Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 04:10:17 -0400 > >Subject: [IP] A Simpler, More Personal Key to Protect Online Messages > >From: Dave Farber > >To: ip > >Reply-To: dave@farber.net > > > > > >------ Forwarded Message > >From: "the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow" > >Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:46:24 +0200 > >To: "Dave E-mail Pamphleteer Farber" > >Subject: A Simpler, More Personal Key to Protect Online Messages > > > >A Simpler, More Personal Key to Protect Online Messages > > > >By JOHN MARKOFF > >The New York Times > > > >PALO ALTO, Calif., July 6 - A Silicon Valley start-up company on Tuesday > >plans to unveil a new approach to sending secure electronic messages and > >protecting data, a simpler alternative to current encryption systems, which > >use long digital numbers, called public keys. > > > >The new company, Voltage Security, which is based here, instead uses >another > >unique identifier as the public key: the message recipient's e-mail >address. > > > >Under the Voltage system, the sender of a message uses software that > >converts the recipient's e-mail address into a number and then encrypts the > >message using a mathematical formula. The recipient can then use a similar > >formula in conjunction with a secret key to decode the message. The company > >says it would be almost impossible for an eavesdropper to use the formula. > >The software can be used with several existing PC e-mail programs. > > > >--snip-- > > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/07/technology/07CODE.html > > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > >geoff.goodfellow@iconia.com * Prague - CZ * telephone +420 603 706 558 > >"success is getting what you want & happiness is wanting what you get" > >http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/01/biztech/articles/17drop.html > >http://www.livejournal.com/users/a2gsg/ > > > > > > > >------ End of Forwarded Message > > > >------------------------------------- > >Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ > > > > > ><---- End Forwarded Message ----> > > > >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 > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jul 7 16:17:55 2003 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 QAA13002 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:17:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZcQR-00028O-Bz for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:17:27 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67KHRHt008192 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:17:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZcQR-00027y-1Q for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:17:27 -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 QAA12990; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:17:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZcQP-00028Z-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:17:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZcQO-00028T-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:17:24 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZcQ1-000245-KA; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:17:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZcP8-00022d-FJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:16:06 -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 QAA12909 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:16:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZcP6-00027W-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:16:04 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZcP6-00026u-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:16:04 -0400 Received: from cb (12-239-236-171.client.attbi.com[12.239.236.171](untrusted sender)) by attbi.com (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <2003070720153101400qov6de>; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:15:33 +0000 From: "Christopher Bird" 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, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Does anyone remember what happened to.... Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 7 Jul 2003 15:15:34 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A while back (probably 2 or 3 years) there used to be an email service called either msgto.com or mailto.com or something like that. It worked by the following (rather clumsy, but quite effective) method. It kept a list of people who I authenticated as legitimate mailers to me in its address list. Any mail from someone in that list was automatically authenticated Any mail from someone not in that list was held in abeyance and an email sent to the return address of that piece of mail. If the person at\the other end confirmed that they did indeed send it, then the mail was forwarded to me and placed in a quarantine box for my approval (whitelist) or disapproval (blacklist). I used the service for a while and it proved very effective indeed. Of course there are several opportunities for abuse: Return address spoofing - so the return/verification emails become spam to someone else Mail delays - if the original sender were unavailable and it was a first time send, then the mail would sit in abeyance until the original sender returned. Does anyone else remember the company/approach? Is it worth resurrecting some of that thinking? Regards Christopher Bird _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 16:17:55 2003 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 QAA13005 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:17:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZcQR-00028N-C1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:17:27 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67KHRA5008188 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:17:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZcQR-00027x-11 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:17:27 -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 QAA12989; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:17:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZcQP-00028W-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:17:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZcQO-00028S-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:17:24 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZcQ2-00024F-0f; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:17:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZcPc-00023R-IZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:16:36 -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 QAA12938 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:16:32 -0400 (EDT) From: angelofd7@icqmail.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZcPZ-000282-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:16:33 -0400 Received: from h001.c012.snv.cp.net ([209.228.35.231] helo=c012.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZcPY-00027x-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:16:33 -0400 Received: (cpmta 16716 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2003 13:16:31 -0700 Received: from 209.228.35.236 (HELO mail.icqmail.com.criticalpath.net) by smtp.icqmail.com (209.228.35.231) with SMTP; 7 Jul 2003 13:16:31 -0700 X-Sent: 7 Jul 2003 20:16:31 GMT Received: from [62.252.128.4] by mail.icqmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:16:18 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Icq: 328427281 X-Sent-From: angelofd7@icqmail.com Subject: [Asrg] A lot of additional comments To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: Web Mail 5.4.0-4_sol28 Message-Id: <20030707131631.17533.h006.c012.wm@mail.icqmail.com.criticalpath.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: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:16:18 -0700 (PDT) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I would like to refer everyone to this link http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis/disgrace/index.html I read this and thought Mr McCarron was exaggerating the problem. I have reviewed the accusations made and I must agree with him. Paul Judge is unfit to be the chair of Anti-Spam research group due to his personal interest in promoting the 'IronMail' product. As an engineer myself, I also agree with Mr McCarron's point about this group 'running in circles' to avoid a solution from being developed. Since Mr McCarron is not given the opportunity to defend himself. I will assist in the matter. If you have a problem with this, well, I am sure I can have 60 engineers posting here everyday on the subject. I am quite sure between us we could average 180 posts a day on 'GIEIS'. For those interested 'GIEIS' has moved to version 0.006. Brian. >From: Vern Paxson >To: "Mark McCarron" >CC: paul.judge@ciphertrust.com, asrg@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis >Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 22:48:49 -0700 > > > As I explained to you off-list also, I am both free to post as often and > > reply to whom ever I want. > >No in fact you are not. I have urged Paul to deny you posting privileges >to the ASRG list unless/until you are able to exhibit civil mailing list >behavior, which includes being responsive to constructive dialog regarding >your posts, heeding requests to take discussions to separate fora, refraining >from advertising your scheme in each of your posts, and staying within the >scope of the research group's mailing list. > > Vern (IRTF chair) This is disgraceful to say the least. This is supposed to be an open forum. Mr McCarron was doing no more than replying to posts that were made about him or the 'GIEIS' architecture. Mr McCarron made it extremely clear that he was not here to debate the system nor obtain any form of approval. Mr McCarron was seeking people to draft the guidelines. > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg >From: Yakov Shafranovich >To: "Brian Hamilton" >CC: Paul Judge ,Vern Paxson >Subject: [off-list] Re: [Asrg] Some important comments >Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:13:44 -0400 > >[off-list] > >I am replying to you off-list in order to keep the GIEIS discussion >to a minimum. Mr McCarron was right then in regards to his proposals being suppressed. Disgraceful. >There is an old joke >(http://www.aviationhumour.co.uk/general/computer/micro.htm): >---snip--- >"A helicopter was flying around above Seattle when an electrical >malfunction disabled all of the aircraft's electronic navigation and >communications equipment. Due to the clouds and haze, the pilot >could not determine the helicopter's position and course to steer to >the airport. The pilot saw a tall building, flew toward it, circled, >drew a handwritten sign, and held it in the helicopter's window. > >The pilot's sign said "WHERE AM I?" in large letters. People in the >tall building quickly responded to the aircraft, drew a large sign, >and held it in a building window. Their sign said "YOU ARE IN A >HELICOPTER." The pilot smiled, waved, looked at his map, determined >the course to steer to SEATAC airport, and landed safely. After they >were on the ground, the copilot asked the pilot how the "YOU ARE IN >A HELICOPTER" sign helped determine their position. The pilot >responded "I knew that had to be the MICROSOFT building because they >gave me a technically correct, but completely useless answer." >---snip--- > >The same applies here, Mark's solution may be technically correct >but at its current stage its totally useless since the technical >details are closely coupled with the marketing materials and other >BS. What we would like to see is a short concise technical summary >like an Internet draft (see www.rfc-editor.org). At this point his >behavior is simply erratic and makes it very hard to evaluate >anything in his proposal. To coin a phrase of Mr McCarron, nonsense. My company was able to extract all the details without any real problems. I also think you are missing Mr McCarron's point in regards to Internet drafts and RFCs. Mr McCarron was pointing out that the Internet is not a 'public system' no longer, it is a business marketplace. As such, it is no longer acceptable for Internet standards being dictated by some form of open organisation. My company alone would save $100 Million every year from implementing 'GIEIS'. > >>I think everyone on this list should carefully consider what Mr >>McCarron is proposing. I understand the point about Mr McCarron >>being annoying and posting frequently on the matter. On the other >>hand, 'GIEIS' is only what I can describe as being a perfect >>architecture. It is funny the contrast between the creator and the >>architecture. >> >>The creation of almost 2 million jobs is a major selling point >>behind 'GIEIS'. I will admit it is marketing but Mr McCarron's >>figures do match up. The ISP I work for is seriously considering >>investing in the implementation program of 'GIEIS'. Not only does >>it make excellent business sense to do so, but it also generates an >>unbelievable PR opportunity. Since the release of version 0.003 of >>the 'GIEIS' proposal, high level meetings have occured to discuss >>the system. When a new version appears, anyone would be lead to >>believe that the CEO has arrived there are that many managers >>present. >> >>'GIEIS' is the simply one of the best proposals we have ever >>encountered. > >Do not fall into the trap of implementing proprietary technology. >The GIEIS system at the moment is not anywhere near being even >considered to be an Internet standard, partly due to the failure of >its creator to communicate properly on the list. Additionally there >are various problems with his proposal which is refusing to address. >Some of the products of the group are documents addressing the >requirements for any potential anti-spam proposals. One of them can >be found at >(http://www.irtf.org/asrg/draft-asrg-anti-spam-requirements.txt), >some of the items listed are: Proprietary technology is the future of the Internet. The open nature allows for to much abuse. Investing in this form of technology would save billions across the world. This is all that concerns us. > >2.must not affect delivery(latency, integrity, cost, reliability) of >wanted messages to a point that would effect the normal use of email >4.must be easy to deploy, incrementally >a.must provide incentives to deploy for those doing the deployment >5.must not depend on universal deployment to be effective >6.must not reduce privacy >7.must have minimal administration and implementation overhead The only point that Mr McCarron's proposal misses out on is number 5. In terms of the financial savings generated annually, the universal adoption would be more than appropriate. > >All of these items do not apply to the GIEIS proposal: >2. Since a centralized system is used the delivery of email is >affected since all messages must pass through a central point. If >the central system is down, then the messages are delayed. >4 and 5. this system is not incremental, one of its main advantages >is that its a closed system - no one outside the system can use it. >6 and 7. every messages needs to be tracked, decreasing privacy and >increasing overhead. I do not think you understand Mr McCarron's proposal. Emails are not delivered from a central point, they are authenticated from it. In addition, with the amount of money Mr McCarron's proposal would generate their would be quite a number of 'cental points' in the 'GIEIS' infrastructure. > >Additionally, take a look at >(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt) >which deals with technical considerations of anti-spam solutions, >especially section 4, in particular (emphasis added): > >"A key construct to examination of adoption and benefit is >"core-vs-edge". Generally, adoption at the edge of a system is >easier and quicker than adoption in the core. If a mechanism affects >the core (infrastructure) then it usually must be adopted by most or >all of the infrastructure before it provides meaningful utility. >IN SOMETHING THE SCALE OF THE INTERNET, IT CAN TAKE DECADES TO REACH >THAT LEVEL OF ADOPTION, IF IT EVER DOES. This a not true. 'GIEIS' is a software update. We have calculated that it would take us less than four weeks to be 'GIEIS compliant'. It is not difficult to patch several hundred servers. > >Remember that the Internet comprises a massive number of independent >administrations, each with their own politics and funding. What is >important and feasible to one might be neither to another. If the >latter administration is in the handling path for a message, then it >will not have implemented the necessary control mechanism. Worse, it >well might not be possible to change this. For example a proposal >that requires a brand new mail service is not likely to gain much >traction." > This proposal has gained traction. You are completely missing the point. That is simply money and Mr McCarron can generate lots of it. >There are numerous other issues as well. > >>All I would suggest is that you do not attempt to judge the system >>based upon its creator. > >Allow me to quote from a message by the chair of the RIPE WG on spam >where Mark's plan was first presented: >"A pity, because in his overstated plan there was probably one idea >that with a little more humility could have been made into >something." > >Unfortunately, unless Mark starts to behave himself, he may find >himself evicted from the group. > >Yakov > I do not think Mr McCarron has done anything wrong. I think 'GIEIS' is being victimized by those with financial interests. This much is quite clear. >From: Yakov Shafranovich >To: "Brian Hamilton" >Subject: Fwd: [off-list] Re: [Asrg] Some important comments >Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:30:30 -0400 > >On an additional note, take a look at the list archives at the >proposal put forth by Walter Dnes. He suggested creating a separate >"business email" system akin to Fedex and UPS interoperable with the >regular email system. > >Yakov > This will not have any affect on spam. The problem is both the current architecture and protocol as Mr McCarron has stated numerous times. >From: Scott Nelson >To: "Brian Hamilton" >Subject: Re: [Asrg] Some important comments >Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 23:38:07 -0700 > >At 05:46 AM 7/7/03 +0000, you wrote: > >As a network engineer for one of Britian's larger Internet services, I view > >'GIEIS' as being an acceptable solution. I have examined the site almost 20 > >times and even put the architecture to the test using paper and pen. I am > >sorry to say that I could not find any point of weakness. I would have > >enjoyed proving Mr McCarron wrong. > > > >I think everyone on this list should carefully consider what Mr McCarron is > >proposing. I understand the point about Mr McCarron being annoying and > >posting frequently on the matter. On the other hand, 'GIEIS' is only what I > >can describe as being a perfect architecture. It is funny the contrast > >between the creator and the architecture. > > > >The creation of almost 2 million jobs is a major selling point behind > >'GIEIS'. I will admit it is marketing but Mr McCarron's figures do match > >up. The ISP I work for is seriously considering investing in the > >implementation program of 'GIEIS'. Not only does it make excellent business > >sense to do so, but it also generates an unbelievable PR opportunity. Since > >the release of version 0.003 of the 'GIEIS' proposal, high level meetings > >have occured to discuss the system. When a new version appears, anyone > >would be lead to believe that the CEO has arrived there are that many > >managers present. > > > >'GIEIS' is the simply one of the best proposals we have ever encountered. > > > >All I would suggest is that you do not attempt to judge the system based > >upon its creator. > > > > >Interesting. >I'm curious, if you don't mind me asking; >Approximately how many peers does your network have, >and how do you think they will feel about your decision to invest, >should you actually do so? > >Scott Nelson > > We have a substantial amount of peers. The decision to invest would unaffect them. For the businesses we support early reports indicate they would be more than delighted with 'GIEIS'. I also see you have a business interest in the spam issue. > >From: Paul Judge >To: "'Mark McCarron'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" >CC: "'Vern Paxson'" , Paul Judge >Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis >Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 06:22:31 -0400 > >Mark, > >Your posting privileges have been revoked due to your posting behavior. You >have continued to ignore the scope of the ASRG's mailing list, ignore >suggestions to move the detailed discussion of your system to an appropriate >mailing list, and constantly advertise your system without any regard for >constructive feedback or other proposals. > >If you assure me that you'll stay on-topic for ASRG and stop flogging GIEIS, >I'll conditionally allow you posting privileges back on the mailing list >(moderated until you prove that you really can be a well-behaving list >member). > >Paul GIEIS is an on-topic issue for the ASRG. Every post that Mr McCarron is going to reply to will be on the topic of GIEIS. You can hardly describe that as 'flogging it'. His behavior has not been inappropriate, he has done nothing more than to respond to every point or accusation made against him. Paul, your alternate motives in this matter are crystal clear. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mark McCarron [mailto:markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 2:45 PM > > To: paul.judge@ciphertrust.com; asrg@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis > > > > > > As I explained to you off-list also, I am both free to post > > as often and > > reply to whom ever I want. The current 'work issues' have > > been nothing more > > than revised nonsense relating to matters that have already > > been extensivly > > 'defined'. > > > > Mark McCarron. > > I will agree to this. I have not been able to locate a single technical post that even approaches resolving the issue of spam. The posts do tend to go round in circles. >From: william@elan.net >To: asrg@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Asrg] Some important comments >Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:23:39 -0700 (PDT) > >X-Originating-IP: [62.252.128.5] <----- See below >X-Originating-Email: [bhamilton20030201@hotmail.com] >From: "Brian Hamilton" >To: asrg@ietf.org >Subject: [Asrg] Some important comments >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >Message-ID: >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2003 05:46:34.0152 (UTC) > FILETIME=[1FB24A80:01C3444B] >Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org > >5.128.252.62.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer inktomi2-ren.server.ntl.com. > >[WHOIS.RIPE.NET] >inetnum: 62.252.128.0 - 62.252.159.255 >netname: NTL >descr: NTL Internet >descr: Renfrew site >country: GB >admin-c: NNMC1-RIPE >tech-c: NNMC1-RIPE >status: ASSIGNED PA >mnt-by: AS5089-MNT >changed: hostmaster@ntli.net 20010706 >changed: hostmaster@ntli.net 20020815 >source: RIPE > >GEIS Webpage is hosted at NTL.com: > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.... > >Conclusion: its possible this maybe Mark McCarron posting from website cgi > or otherwise redirecting from it > We are both on the same network, with access to the same rotating proxy hosted by NTL to assist engineers in bypassing the cache. >From: "C. Wegrzyn" >CC: "'asrg@ietf.org'" >Subject: Re: [Asrg] Some important comments >Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:55:53 -0400 > >While GEIS might have some merit I find it funny that a person that >is "rearchitecting" the whole eMail infrastructure of the internet >doesn't know the simplest things about the current system! > >Chuck Wegrzyn > Are you not the person who suggested using a VPN for email. You have some nerve of accusing Mr McCarron of not understanding email infrastructure. There is quite clearly more technical knowledge in his foot than is in your head. B Hamilton ------------------------------------------------------------- Sign up for ICQmail at http://www.icq.com/icqmail/signup.html _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 16:37:38 2003 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 QAA14122 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:37:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZcjV-0003O9-9p for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:37:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67Kb95D013019 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:37:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZcjV-0003Nu-5m for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:37:09 -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 QAA14087; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:37:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZcjT-0002QY-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:37:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZcjS-0002QV-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:37:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZcjN-0003K2-4R; Mon, 07 Jul 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 19Zciu-0003J3-QT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:36:32 -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 QAA14068 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:36:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zcis-0002Q9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:36:31 -0400 Received: from eridanilinux.demon.co.uk ([62.49.18.88] helo=Psychoceramic.eridani.co.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zcir-0002Q6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:36:30 -0400 Received: from eridani.co.uk (IDENT:root@zeskia.int.eridani.co.uk [192.168.96.1]) by Psychoceramic.eridani.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h67KaQR20888 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 21:36:26 +0100 Received: from localhost (soruk@localhost) by eridani.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h67KaRX31903 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 21:36:27 +0100 From: Michael McConnell X-X-Sender: soruk@zeskia.int.eridani.co.uk To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A lot of additional comments In-Reply-To: <20030707131631.17533.h006.c012.wm@mail.icqmail.com.criticalpath.net> Message-ID: Organization: Eridani Star System 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, 7 Jul 2003 21:36:27 +0100 (BST) On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 angelofd7@icqmail.com wrote: > >From: william@elan.net > >To: asrg@ietf.org > >Subject: Re: [Asrg] Some important comments > >Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:23:39 -0700 (PDT) > > > >X-Originating-IP: [62.252.128.5] <----- See below His latest message: Received: from [62.252.128.4] by mail.icqmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:16:18 -0700 (PDT) Why am I not surprised? Can that subnet not just be barred in its entirety? -- Michael "Soruk" McConnell Eridani Linux -- http://www.eridani.co.uk -- Linux Distros on CD-ROM MailStripper -- http://www.eridani.co.uk/MailStripper -- strips out spam ** A tachyon: A gluon that isn't dry yet. ** _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 16:42:33 2003 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 QAA14303 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:42:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZcoH-0003xT-4i for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:42:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67Kg501015208 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:42:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZcoG-0003xD-P9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:42:04 -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 QAA14273; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:42:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZcoE-0002Sv-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:42:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZcoE-0002Sr-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:42:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZcoE-0003u0-Fk; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:42:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zco9-0003sU-LL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:41:57 -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 QAA14268 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:41:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zco7-0002So-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:41:55 -0400 Received: from 000-234-283.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.154.96] helo=68.27.154.96) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zco4-0002SW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:41:53 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707163841.00bd6a90@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: angelofd7@icqmail.com, asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] A lot of additional comments Cc: Paul Judge , Vern Paxson In-Reply-To: <20030707131631.17533.h006.c012.wm@mail.icqmail.com.critica lpath.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: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:41:37 -0400 For the record as pointed out by someone else, "angelofd7" is an alias for Mr. McCarron which is an email address for his ICQ account #328427281, see this RIPE WG message: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/anti-spam-wg/2003/msg00225.html Some people just don't want to leave, remember the old saying: "Don't feed the trolls". At 01:16 PM 7/7/2003 -0700, angelofd7@icqmail.com AKA Mark McCarron blubbered on: >.... >I read this and thought Mr McCarron was exaggerating >the problem. I have reviewed the accusations made and >I must agree with him. Paul Judge is unfit to be the >chair of Anti-Spam research group due to his personal >interest in promoting the 'IronMail' product. As an >engineer myself, I also agree with Mr McCarron's point >about this group 'running in circles' to avoid a >solution from being developed. > >Since Mr McCarron is not given the opportunity to >defend himself. I will assist in the matter. If you >have a problem with this, well, I am sure I can have 60 >engineers posting here everyday on the subject. I am >quite sure between us we could average 180 posts a day >on 'GIEIS'. > >For those interested 'GIEIS' has moved to version 0.006. > >Brian. >..... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 16:45:33 2003 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 QAA14459 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:45:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZcrB-0004JV-LV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:45:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67Kj5L2016575 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:45:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZcrB-0004JG-GP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:45:05 -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 QAA14443; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:45:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zcr9-0002W3-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:45:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zcr8-0002W0-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:45:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zcr7-0004Fo-Ul; Mon, 07 Jul 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 19Zcqf-0004CO-Lw for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:44:33 -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 QAA14397 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:44:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zcqd-0002VU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:44:31 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zcqc-0002Uo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:44:30 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:43:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:31:24 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'angelofd7@icqmail.com'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] A lot of additional comments 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, 7 Jul 2003 16:31:24 -0400 Even though it is fairly obvious, I've confirmed that this email also comes from Marc McCarron. I've taken a few measures to prevent this type of interruption in the future. One of which is that new subscriptions now require administrator approval in addition to email confirmation. Hopefully, Marc will focus on setting up a mailing list to discuss the details of his system for interested parties rather than spend his time creating aliases and making obviously false accusations. > -----Original Message----- > From: angelofd7@icqmail.com [mailto:angelofd7@icqmail.com] > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 4:16 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] A lot of additional comments > > > I would like to refer everyone to this link > > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis/disgrace/index.html > > > I read this and thought Mr McCarron was exaggerating > the problem. I have reviewed the accusations made and > I must agree with him. Paul Judge is unfit to be the > chair of Anti-Spam research group due to his personal > interest in promoting the 'IronMail' product. As an > engineer myself, I also agree with Mr McCarron's point > about this group 'running in circles' to avoid a > solution from being developed. > > Since Mr McCarron is not given the opportunity to > defend himself. I will assist in the matter. If you > have a problem with this, well, I am sure I can have 60 > engineers posting here everyday on the subject. I am quite > sure between us we could average 180 posts a day on 'GIEIS'. > > For those interested 'GIEIS' has moved to version 0.006. > > > Brian. > > > > > > >From: Vern Paxson > >To: "Mark McCarron" > >CC: paul.judge@ciphertrust.com, asrg@ietf.org > >Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - > GIEIS Analysis > >Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 22:48:49 -0700 > > > > > As I explained to you off-list also, I am both free > to post as often and > > > reply to whom ever I want. > > > >No in fact you are not. I have urged Paul to deny you > posting privileges > >to the ASRG list unless/until you are able to exhibit > civil mailing list > >behavior, which includes being responsive to > constructive dialog regarding > >your posts, heeding requests to take discussions to > separate fora, refraining > >from advertising your scheme in each of your posts, > and staying within the > >scope of the research group's mailing list. > > > > Vern (IRTF chair) > > > > This is disgraceful to say the least. This is supposed > to be an open forum. Mr McCarron was doing no more > than replying to posts that were made about him or the > 'GIEIS' architecture. Mr McCarron made it extremely > clear that he was not here to debate the system nor > obtain any form of approval. Mr McCarron was seeking > people to draft the guidelines. > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Asrg mailing list > >Asrg@ietf.org > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > >From: Yakov Shafranovich > >To: "Brian Hamilton" > >CC: Paul Judge ,Vern > Paxson > >Subject: [off-list] Re: [Asrg] Some important comments > >Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:13:44 -0400 > > > >[off-list] > > > >I am replying to you off-list in order to keep the > GIEIS discussion > >to a minimum. > > > > Mr McCarron was right then in regards to his proposals > being suppressed. Disgraceful. > > > > > >There is an old joke > >(http://www.aviationhumour.co.uk/general/computer/micro.htm): > >---snip--- > >"A helicopter was flying around above Seattle when an > electrical > >malfunction disabled all of the aircraft's electronic > navigation and > >communications equipment. Due to the clouds and haze, > the pilot > >could not determine the helicopter's position and > course to steer to > >the airport. The pilot saw a tall building, flew > toward it, circled, > >drew a handwritten sign, and held it in the > helicopter's window. > > > >The pilot's sign said "WHERE AM I?" in large letters. > People in the > >tall building quickly responded to the aircraft, drew > a large sign, > >and held it in a building window. Their sign said "YOU > ARE IN A > >HELICOPTER." The pilot smiled, waved, looked at his > map, determined > >the course to steer to SEATAC airport, and landed > safely. After they > >were on the ground, the copilot asked the pilot how > the "YOU ARE IN > >A HELICOPTER" sign helped determine their position. > The pilot > >responded "I knew that had to be the MICROSOFT > building because they > >gave me a technically correct, but completely useless > answer." > >---snip--- > > > >The same applies here, Mark's solution may be > technically correct > >but at its current stage its totally useless since the > technical > >details are closely coupled with the marketing > materials and other > >BS. What we would like to see is a short concise > technical summary > >like an Internet draft (see www.rfc-editor.org). At > this point his > >behavior is simply erratic and makes it very hard to > evaluate > >anything in his proposal. > > > > To coin a phrase of Mr McCarron, nonsense. My company > was able to extract all the details without any real > problems. I also think you are missing Mr McCarron's > point in regards to Internet drafts and RFCs. Mr > McCarron was pointing out that the Internet is not a > 'public system' no longer, it is a business > marketplace. As such, it is no longer acceptable for > Internet standards being dictated by some form of open > organisation. My company alone would save $100 Million every > year from implementing 'GIEIS'. > > > > > > >>I think everyone on this list should carefully > consider what Mr > >>McCarron is proposing. I understand the point about > Mr McCarron > >>being annoying and posting frequently on the matter. > On the other > >>hand, 'GIEIS' is only what I can describe as being a > perfect > >>architecture. It is funny the contrast between the > creator and the > >>architecture. > >> > >>The creation of almost 2 million jobs is a major > selling point > >>behind 'GIEIS'. I will admit it is marketing but Mr > McCarron's > >>figures do match up. The ISP I work for is seriously > considering > >>investing in the implementation program of 'GIEIS'. > Not only does > >>it make excellent business sense to do so, but it > also generates an > >>unbelievable PR opportunity. Since the release of > version 0.003 of > >>the 'GIEIS' proposal, high level meetings have > occured to discuss > >>the system. When a new version appears, anyone would > be lead to > >>believe that the CEO has arrived there are that many > managers > >>present. > >> > >>'GIEIS' is the simply one of the best proposals we > have ever > >>encountered. > > > >Do not fall into the trap of implementing proprietary > technology. > >The GIEIS system at the moment is not anywhere near > being even > >considered to be an Internet standard, partly due to > the failure of > >its creator to communicate properly on the list. > Additionally there > >are various problems with his proposal which is > refusing to address. > >Some of the products of the group are documents > addressing the > >requirements for any potential anti-spam proposals. > One of them can > >be found at > >(http://www.irtf.org/asrg/draft-asrg-anti-spam-requirements.txt), > >some of the items listed are: > > > > Proprietary technology is the future of the Internet. > The open nature allows for to much abuse. Investing in > this form of technology would save billions across the > world. This is all that concerns us. > > > > > > > > >2.must not affect delivery(latency, integrity, cost, > reliability) of > >wanted messages to a point that would effect the > normal use of email > >4.must be easy to deploy, incrementally > >a.must provide incentives to deploy for those doing > the deployment > >5.must not depend on universal deployment to be > effective > >6.must not reduce privacy > >7.must have minimal administration and implementation > overhead > > > > The only point that Mr McCarron's proposal misses out > on is number 5. In terms of the financial savings > generated annually, the universal adoption would be > more than appropriate. > > > > > > >All of these items do not apply to the GIEIS proposal: > >2. Since a centralized system is used the delivery of > email is > >affected since all messages must pass through a > central point. If > >the central system is down, then the messages are > delayed. > >4 and 5. this system is not incremental, one of its > main advantages > >is that its a closed system - no one outside the > system can use it. > >6 and 7. every messages needs to be tracked, > decreasing privacy and > >increasing overhead. > > > > I do not think you understand Mr McCarron's proposal. > Emails are not delivered from a central point, they are > authenticated from it. In addition, with the amount of > money Mr McCarron's proposal would generate their would > be quite a number of 'cental points' in the 'GIEIS' > infrastructure. > > > > > > > >Additionally, take a look at > >(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techc > onsider-02.txt) > >which deals with technical considerations of anti-spam > solutions, > >especially section 4, in particular (emphasis added): > > > >"A key construct to examination of adoption and > benefit is > >"core-vs-edge". Generally, adoption at the edge of a > system is > >easier and quicker than adoption in the core. If a > mechanism affects > >the core (infrastructure) then it usually must be > adopted by most or > >all of the infrastructure before it provides > meaningful utility. > >IN SOMETHING THE SCALE OF THE INTERNET, IT CAN TAKE > DECADES TO REACH > >THAT LEVEL OF ADOPTION, IF IT EVER DOES. > > > > This a not true. 'GIEIS' is a software update. We > have calculated that it would take us less than four > weeks to be 'GIEIS compliant'. It is not difficult to > patch several hundred servers. > > > > > > > >Remember that the Internet comprises a massive number > of independent > >administrations, each with their own politics and > funding. What is > >important and feasible to one might be neither to > another. If the > >latter administration is in the handling path for a > message, then it > >will not have implemented the necessary control > mechanism. Worse, it > >well might not be possible to change this. For > example a proposal > >that requires a brand new mail service is not likely > to gain much > >traction." > > > > > > This proposal has gained traction. You are completely > missing the point. That is simply money and Mr > McCarron can generate lots of it. > > > > > >There are numerous other issues as well. > > > >>All I would suggest is that you do not attempt to > judge the system > >>based upon its creator. > > > >Allow me to quote from a message by the chair of the > RIPE WG on spam > >where Mark's plan was first presented: > >"A pity, because in his overstated plan there was > probably one idea > >that with a little more humility could have been made > into > >something." > > > >Unfortunately, unless Mark starts to behave himself, > he may find > >himself evicted from the group. > > > >Yakov > > > > > > I do not think Mr McCarron has done anything wrong. I > think 'GIEIS' is being victimized by those with > financial interests. This much is quite clear. > > > > > > > > > >From: Yakov Shafranovich > >To: "Brian Hamilton" > >Subject: Fwd: [off-list] Re: [Asrg] Some important > comments > >Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:30:30 -0400 > > > >On an additional note, take a look at the list > archives at the > >proposal put forth by Walter Dnes. He suggested > creating a separate > >"business email" system akin to Fedex and UPS > interoperable with the > >regular email system. > > > >Yakov > > > > > > This will not have any affect on spam. The problem is > both the current architecture and protocol as Mr > McCarron has stated numerous times. > > > > > >From: Scott Nelson > >To: "Brian Hamilton" > >Subject: Re: [Asrg] Some important comments > >Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 23:38:07 -0700 > > > >At 05:46 AM 7/7/03 +0000, you wrote: > > >As a network engineer for one of Britian's larger > Internet services, I view > > >'GIEIS' as being an acceptable solution. I have > examined the site almost 20 > > >times and even put the architecture to the test > using paper and pen. I am > > >sorry to say that I could not find any point of > weakness. I would have > > >enjoyed proving Mr McCarron wrong. > > > > > >I think everyone on this list should carefully > consider what Mr McCarron is > > >proposing. I understand the point about Mr McCarron > being annoying and > > >posting frequently on the matter. On the other > hand, 'GIEIS' is only what I > > >can describe as being a perfect architecture. It is > funny the contrast > > >between the creator and the architecture. > > > > > >The creation of almost 2 million jobs is a major > selling point behind > > >'GIEIS'. I will admit it is marketing but Mr > McCarron's figures do match > > >up. The ISP I work for is seriously considering > investing in the > > >implementation program of 'GIEIS'. Not only does it > make excellent business > > >sense to do so, but it also generates an > unbelievable PR opportunity. Since > > >the release of version 0.003 of the 'GIEIS' > proposal, high level meetings > > >have occured to discuss the system. When a new > version appears, anyone > > >would be lead to believe that the CEO has arrived > there are that many > > >managers present. > > > > > >'GIEIS' is the simply one of the best proposals we > have ever encountered. > > > > > >All I would suggest is that you do not attempt to > judge the system based > > >upon its creator. > > > > > > > > >Interesting. > >I'm curious, if you don't mind me asking; > >Approximately how many peers does your network have, > >and how do you think they will feel about your > decision to invest, > >should you actually do so? > > > >Scott Nelson > > > > > > > > We have a substantial amount of peers. The decision to > invest would unaffect them. For the businesses we > support early reports indicate they would be more than > delighted with 'GIEIS'. I also see you have a business > interest in the spam issue. > > > > > > > > > >From: Paul Judge > >To: "'Mark McCarron'" , > "'asrg@ietf.org'" > >CC: "'Vern Paxson'" , Paul Judge > > >Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - > GIEIS Analysis > >Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 06:22:31 -0400 > > > >Mark, > > > >Your posting privileges have been revoked due to your > posting behavior. You > >have continued to ignore the scope of the ASRG's > mailing list, ignore > >suggestions to move the detailed discussion of your > system to an appropriate > >mailing list, and constantly advertise your system > without any regard for > >constructive feedback or other proposals. > > > >If you assure me that you'll stay on-topic for ASRG > and stop flogging GIEIS, > >I'll conditionally allow you posting privileges back > on the mailing list > >(moderated until you prove that you really can be a > well-behaving list > >member). > > > >Paul > > > > GIEIS is an on-topic issue for the ASRG. Every post > that Mr McCarron is going to reply to will be on the > topic of GIEIS. You can hardly describe that as > 'flogging it'. His behavior has not been > inappropriate, he has done nothing more than to respond > to every point or accusation made against him. Paul, > your alternate motives in this matter are crystal clear. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Mark McCarron > [mailto:markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] > > > Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 2:45 PM > > > To: paul.judge@ciphertrust.com; asrg@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - > GIEIS Analysis > > > > > > > > > As I explained to you off-list also, I am both free > to post > > > as often and > > > reply to whom ever I want. The current 'work > issues' have > > > been nothing more > > > than revised nonsense relating to matters that have > already > > > been extensivly > > > 'defined'. > > > > > > Mark McCarron. > > > > > > > I will agree to this. I have not been able to locate a > single technical post that even approaches resolving > the issue of spam. The posts do tend to go round in > circles. > > > > > > > >From: william@elan.net > >To: asrg@ietf.org > >Subject: Re: [Asrg] Some important comments > >Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:23:39 -0700 (PDT) > > > >X-Originating-IP: [62.252.128.5] <----- See below > >X-Originating-Email: [bhamilton20030201@hotmail.com] > >From: "Brian Hamilton" > >To: asrg@ietf.org > >Subject: [Asrg] Some important comments > >Mime-Version: 1.0 > >Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed > >Message-ID: > >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2003 05:46:34.0152 (UTC) > > FILETIME=[1FB24A80:01C3444B] > >Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org > > > >5.128.252.62.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer > inktomi2-ren.server.ntl.com. > > > >[WHOIS.RIPE.NET] > >inetnum: 62.252.128.0 - 62.252.159.255 > >netname: NTL > >descr: NTL Internet > >descr: Renfrew site > >country: GB > >admin-c: NNMC1-RIPE > >tech-c: NNMC1-RIPE > >status: ASSIGNED PA > >mnt-by: AS5089-MNT > >changed: hostmaster@ntli.net 20010706 > >changed: hostmaster@ntli.net 20020815 > >source: RIPE > > > >GEIS Webpage is hosted at NTL.com: > > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.... > > > >Conclusion: its possible this maybe Mark McCarron > posting from website cgi > > or otherwise redirecting from it > > > > > > We are both on the same network, with access to the > same rotating proxy hosted by NTL to assist engineers > in bypassing the cache. > > > > > >From: "C. Wegrzyn" > >CC: "'asrg@ietf.org'" > >Subject: Re: [Asrg] Some important comments > >Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:55:53 -0400 > > > >While GEIS might have some merit I find it funny that > a person that > >is "rearchitecting" the whole eMail infrastructure of > the internet > >doesn't know the simplest things about the current > system! > > > >Chuck Wegrzyn > > > > > Are you not the person who suggested using a VPN for > email. You have some nerve of accusing Mr McCarron of > not understanding email infrastructure. There is quite > clearly more technical knowledge in his foot than is in > your head. > > B Hamilton > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Sign up for ICQmail at http://www.icq.com/icqmail/signup.html > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 7 16:55:38 2003 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 QAA14909 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:55:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zd0w-0004sT-Ur for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:55:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67KtAbi018743 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:55:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zd0w-0004sE-R5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:55:10 -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 QAA14891; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:55:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zd0u-0002dh-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:55:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zd0u-0002de-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:55:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zd0m-0004mU-Sh; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:55:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zd0c-0004mE-C9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:54:50 -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 QAA14878 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:54:47 -0400 (EDT) From: william@elan.net Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zd0a-0002dR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:54:48 -0400 Received: from sokol.elan.net ([216.151.192.200]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zd0Y-0002dO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:54:47 -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 h67ILSZq028309; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:21:28 -0700 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h67ILSdA028305; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:21:28 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Paul Judge cc: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] A lot of additional comments 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: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:21:28 -0700 (PDT) This is not the best way. We should allow free reading of discussion on mailing list. The best is confirmation by moderator of a first post from any new subscriber - i.e. default for new users should be to have their posts moderated rather then not but not to actually prevent new subscriptions. And for large list such as ASRG, I think it'll also be less work for moderator to check first post rather then all subscription requests. On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Paul Judge wrote: > Even though it is fairly obvious, I've confirmed that this email also comes > from Marc McCarron. > > I've taken a few measures to prevent this type of interruption in the > future. One of which is that new subscriptions now require administrator > approval in addition to email confirmation. > > Hopefully, Marc will focus on setting up a mailing list to discuss the > details of his system for interested parties rather than spend his time > creating aliases and making obviously false accusations. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: angelofd7@icqmail.com [mailto:angelofd7@icqmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 4:16 PM > > To: asrg@ietf.org > > Subject: [Asrg] A lot of additional comments > > > > > > I would like to refer everyone to this link > > > > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis/disgrace/index.html > > > > > > I read this and thought Mr McCarron was exaggerating > > the problem. I have reviewed the accusations made and > > I must agree with him. Paul Judge is unfit to be the > > chair of Anti-Spam research group due to his personal > > interest in promoting the 'IronMail' product. As an > > engineer myself, I also agree with Mr McCarron's point > > about this group 'running in circles' to avoid a > > solution from being developed. > > > > Since Mr McCarron is not given the opportunity to > > defend himself. I will assist in the matter. If you > > have a problem with this, well, I am sure I can have 60 > > engineers posting here everyday on the subject. I am quite > > sure between us we could average 180 posts a day on 'GIEIS'. > > > > For those interested 'GIEIS' has moved to version 0.006. > > > > > > Brian. > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: Vern Paxson > > >To: "Mark McCarron" > > >CC: paul.judge@ciphertrust.com, asrg@ietf.org > > >Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - > > GIEIS Analysis > > >Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 22:48:49 -0700 > > > > > > > As I explained to you off-list also, I am both free > > to post as often and > > > > reply to whom ever I want. > > > > > >No in fact you are not. I have urged Paul to deny you > > posting privileges > > >to the ASRG list unless/until you are able to exhibit > > civil mailing list > > >behavior, which includes being responsive to > > constructive dialog regarding > > >your posts, heeding requests to take discussions to > > separate fora, refraining > > >from advertising your scheme in each of your posts, > > and staying within the > > >scope of the research group's mailing list. > > > > > > Vern (IRTF chair) > > > > > > > > This is disgraceful to say the least. This is supposed > > to be an open forum. Mr McCarron was doing no more > > than replying to posts that were made about him or the > > 'GIEIS' architecture. Mr McCarron made it extremely > > clear that he was not here to debate the system nor > > obtain any form of approval. Mr McCarron was seeking > > people to draft the guidelines. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Asrg mailing list > > >Asrg@ietf.org > > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > > >From: Yakov Shafranovich > > >To: "Brian Hamilton" > > >CC: Paul Judge ,Vern > > Paxson > > >Subject: [off-list] Re: [Asrg] Some important comments > > >Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:13:44 -0400 > > > > > >[off-list] > > > > > >I am replying to you off-list in order to keep the > > GIEIS discussion > > >to a minimum. > > > > > > > > Mr McCarron was right then in regards to his proposals > > being suppressed. Disgraceful. > > > > > > > > > > >There is an old joke > > >(http://www.aviationhumour.co.uk/general/computer/micro.htm): > > >---snip--- > > >"A helicopter was flying around above Seattle when an > > electrical > > >malfunction disabled all of the aircraft's electronic > > navigation and > > >communications equipment. Due to the clouds and haze, > > the pilot > > >could not determine the helicopter's position and > > course to steer to > > >the airport. The pilot saw a tall building, flew > > toward it, circled, > > >drew a handwritten sign, and held it in the > > helicopter's window. > > > > > >The pilot's sign said "WHERE AM I?" in large letters. > > People in the > > >tall building quickly responded to the aircraft, drew > > a large sign, > > >and held it in a building window. Their sign said "YOU > > ARE IN A > > >HELICOPTER." The pilot smiled, waved, looked at his > > map, determined > > >the course to steer to SEATAC airport, and landed > > safely. After they > > >were on the ground, the copilot asked the pilot how > > the "YOU ARE IN > > >A HELICOPTER" sign helped determine their position. > > The pilot > > >responded "I knew that had to be the MICROSOFT > > building because they > > >gave me a technically correct, but completely useless > > answer." > > >---snip--- > > > > > >The same applies here, Mark's solution may be > > technically correct > > >but at its current stage its totally useless since the > > technical > > >details are closely coupled with the marketing > > materials and other > > >BS. What we would like to see is a short concise > > technical summary > > >like an Internet draft (see www.rfc-editor.org). At > > this point his > > >behavior is simply erratic and makes it very hard to > > evaluate > > >anything in his proposal. > > > > > > > > To coin a phrase of Mr McCarron, nonsense. My company > > was able to extract all the details without any real > > problems. I also think you are missing Mr McCarron's > > point in regards to Internet drafts and RFCs. Mr > > McCarron was pointing out that the Internet is not a > > 'public system' no longer, it is a business > > marketplace. As such, it is no longer acceptable for > > Internet standards being dictated by some form of open > > organisation. My company alone would save $100 Million every > > year from implementing 'GIEIS'. > > > > > > > > > > > >>I think everyone on this list should carefully > > consider what Mr > > >>McCarron is proposing. I understand the point about > > Mr McCarron > > >>being annoying and posting frequently on the matter. > > On the other > > >>hand, 'GIEIS' is only what I can describe as being a > > perfect > > >>architecture. It is funny the contrast between the > > creator and the > > >>architecture. > > >> > > >>The creation of almost 2 million jobs is a major > > selling point > > >>behind 'GIEIS'. I will admit it is marketing but Mr > > McCarron's > > >>figures do match up. The ISP I work for is seriously > > considering > > >>investing in the implementation program of 'GIEIS'. > > Not only does > > >>it make excellent business sense to do so, but it > > also generates an > > >>unbelievable PR opportunity. Since the release of > > version 0.003 of > > >>the 'GIEIS' proposal, high level meetings have > > occured to discuss > > >>the system. When a new version appears, anyone would > > be lead to > > >>believe that the CEO has arrived there are that many > > managers > > >>present. > > >> > > >>'GIEIS' is the simply one of the best proposals we > > have ever > > >>encountered. > > > > > >Do not fall into the trap of implementing proprietary > > technology. > > >The GIEIS system at the moment is not anywhere near > > being even > > >considered to be an Internet standard, partly due to > > the failure of > > >its creator to communicate properly on the list. > > Additionally there > > >are various problems with his proposal which is > > refusing to address. > > >Some of the products of the group are documents > > addressing the > > >requirements for any potential anti-spam proposals. > > One of them can > > >be found at > > >(http://www.irtf.org/asrg/draft-asrg-anti-spam-requirements.txt), > > >some of the items listed are: > > > > > > > > Proprietary technology is the future of the Internet. > > The open nature allows for to much abuse. Investing in > > this form of technology would save billions across the > > world. This is all that concerns us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >2.must not affect delivery(latency, integrity, cost, > > reliability) of > > >wanted messages to a point that would effect the > > normal use of email > > >4.must be easy to deploy, incrementally > > >a.must provide incentives to deploy for those doing > > the deployment > > >5.must not depend on universal deployment to be > > effective > > >6.must not reduce privacy > > >7.must have minimal administration and implementation > > overhead > > > > > > > > The only point that Mr McCarron's proposal misses out > > on is number 5. In terms of the financial savings > > generated annually, the universal adoption would be > > more than appropriate. > > > > > > > > > > > >All of these items do not apply to the GIEIS proposal: > > >2. Since a centralized system is used the delivery of > > email is > > >affected since all messages must pass through a > > central point. If > > >the central system is down, then the messages are > > delayed. > > >4 and 5. this system is not incremental, one of its > > main advantages > > >is that its a closed system - no one outside the > > system can use it. > > >6 and 7. every messages needs to be tracked, > > decreasing privacy and > > >increasing overhead. > > > > > > > > I do not think you understand Mr McCarron's proposal. > > Emails are not delivered from a central point, they are > > authenticated from it. In addition, with the amount of > > money Mr McCarron's proposal would generate their would > > be quite a number of 'cental points' in the 'GIEIS' > > infrastructure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Additionally, take a look at > > >(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techc > > onsider-02.txt) > > >which deals with technical considerations of anti-spam > > solutions, > > >especially section 4, in particular (emphasis added): > > > > > >"A key construct to examination of adoption and > > benefit is > > >"core-vs-edge". Generally, adoption at the edge of a > > system is > > >easier and quicker than adoption in the core. If a > > mechanism affects > > >the core (infrastructure) then it usually must be > > adopted by most or > > >all of the infrastructure before it provides > > meaningful utility. > > >IN SOMETHING THE SCALE OF THE INTERNET, IT CAN TAKE > > DECADES TO REACH > > >THAT LEVEL OF ADOPTION, IF IT EVER DOES. > > > > > > > > This a not true. 'GIEIS' is a software update. We > > have calculated that it would take us less than four > > weeks to be 'GIEIS compliant'. It is not difficult to > > patch several hundred servers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Remember that the Internet comprises a massive number > > of independent > > >administrations, each with their own politics and > > funding. What is > > >important and feasible to one might be neither to > > another. If the > > >latter administration is in the handling path for a > > message, then it > > >will not have implemented the necessary control > > mechanism. Worse, it > > >well might not be possible to change this. For > > example a proposal > > >that requires a brand new mail service is not likely > > to gain much > > >traction." > > > > > > > > > > > This proposal has gained traction. You are completely > > missing the point. That is simply money and Mr > > McCarron can generate lots of it. > > > > > > > > > > >There are numerous other issues as well. > > > > > >>All I would suggest is that you do not attempt to > > judge the system > > >>based upon its creator. > > > > > >Allow me to quote from a message by the chair of the > > RIPE WG on spam > > >where Mark's plan was first presented: > > >"A pity, because in his overstated plan there was > > probably one idea > > >that with a little more humility could have been made > > into > > >something." > > > > > >Unfortunately, unless Mark starts to behave himself, > > he may find > > >himself evicted from the group. > > > > > >Yakov > > > > > > > > > > > I do not think Mr McCarron has done anything wrong. I > > think 'GIEIS' is being victimized by those with > > financial interests. This much is quite clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: Yakov Shafranovich > > >To: "Brian Hamilton" > > >Subject: Fwd: [off-list] Re: [Asrg] Some important > > comments > > >Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:30:30 -0400 > > > > > >On an additional note, take a look at the list > > archives at the > > >proposal put forth by Walter Dnes. He suggested > > creating a separate > > >"business email" system akin to Fedex and UPS > > interoperable with the > > >regular email system. > > > > > >Yakov > > > > > > > > > > > This will not have any affect on spam. The problem is > > both the current architecture and protocol as Mr > > McCarron has stated numerous times. > > > > > > > > > > >From: Scott Nelson > > >To: "Brian Hamilton" > > >Subject: Re: [Asrg] Some important comments > > >Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 23:38:07 -0700 > > > > > >At 05:46 AM 7/7/03 +0000, you wrote: > > > >As a network engineer for one of Britian's larger > > Internet services, I view > > > >'GIEIS' as being an acceptable solution. I have > > examined the site almost 20 > > > >times and even put the architecture to the test > > using paper and pen. I am > > > >sorry to say that I could not find any point of > > weakness. I would have > > > >enjoyed proving Mr McCarron wrong. > > > > > > > >I think everyone on this list should carefully > > consider what Mr McCarron is > > > >proposing. I understand the point about Mr McCarron > > being annoying and > > > >posting frequently on the matter. On the other > > hand, 'GIEIS' is only what I > > > >can describe as being a perfect architecture. It is > > funny the contrast > > > >between the creator and the architecture. > > > > > > > >The creation of almost 2 million jobs is a major > > selling point behind > > > >'GIEIS'. I will admit it is marketing but Mr > > McCarron's figures do match > > > >up. The ISP I work for is seriously considering > > investing in the > > > >implementation program of 'GIEIS'. Not only does it > > make excellent business > > > >sense to do so, but it also generates an > > unbelievable PR opportunity. Since > > > >the release of version 0.003 of the 'GIEIS' > > proposal, high level meetings > > > >have occured to discuss the system. When a new > > version appears, anyone > > > >would be lead to believe that the CEO has arrived > > there are that many > > > >managers present. > > > > > > > >'GIEIS' is the simply one of the best proposals we > > have ever encountered. > > > > > > > >All I would suggest is that you do not attempt to > > judge the system based > > > >upon its creator. > > > > > > > > > > > > >Interesting. > > >I'm curious, if you don't mind me asking; > > >Approximately how many peers does your network have, > > >and how do you think they will feel about your > > decision to invest, > > >should you actually do so? > > > > > >Scott Nelson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have a substantial amount of peers. The decision to > > invest would unaffect them. For the businesses we > > support early reports indicate they would be more than > > delighted with 'GIEIS'. I also see you have a business > > interest in the spam issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: Paul Judge > > >To: "'Mark McCarron'" , > > "'asrg@ietf.org'" > > >CC: "'Vern Paxson'" , Paul Judge > > > > >Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - > > GIEIS Analysis > > >Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 06:22:31 -0400 > > > > > >Mark, > > > > > >Your posting privileges have been revoked due to your > > posting behavior. You > > >have continued to ignore the scope of the ASRG's > > mailing list, ignore > > >suggestions to move the detailed discussion of your > > system to an appropriate > > >mailing list, and constantly advertise your system > > without any regard for > > >constructive feedback or other proposals. > > > > > >If you assure me that you'll stay on-topic for ASRG > > and stop flogging GIEIS, > > >I'll conditionally allow you posting privileges back > > on the mailing list > > >(moderated until you prove that you really can be a > > well-behaving list > > >member). > > > > > >Paul > > > > > > > > GIEIS is an on-topic issue for the ASRG. Every post > > that Mr McCarron is going to reply to will be on the > > topic of GIEIS. You can hardly describe that as > > 'flogging it'. His behavior has not been > > inappropriate, he has done nothing more than to respond > > to every point or accusation made against him. Paul, > > your alternate motives in this matter are crystal clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Mark McCarron > > [mailto:markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] > > > > Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 2:45 PM > > > > To: paul.judge@ciphertrust.com; asrg@ietf.org > > > > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - > > GIEIS Analysis > > > > > > > > > > > > As I explained to you off-list also, I am both free > > to post > > > > as often and > > > > reply to whom ever I want. The current 'work > > issues' have > > > > been nothing more > > > > than revised nonsense relating to matters that have > > already > > > > been extensivly > > > > 'defined'. > > > > > > > > Mark McCarron. > > > > > > > > > > > > I will agree to this. I have not been able to locate a > > single technical post that even approaches resolving > > the issue of spam. The posts do tend to go round in > > circles. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: william@elan.net > > >To: asrg@ietf.org > > >Subject: Re: [Asrg] Some important comments > > >Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:23:39 -0700 (PDT) > > > > > >X-Originating-IP: [62.252.128.5] <----- See below > > >X-Originating-Email: [bhamilton20030201@hotmail.com] > > >From: "Brian Hamilton" > > >To: asrg@ietf.org > > >Subject: [Asrg] Some important comments > > >Mime-Version: 1.0 > > >Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed > > >Message-ID: > > >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2003 05:46:34.0152 (UTC) > > > FILETIME=[1FB24A80:01C3444B] > > >Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org > > > > > >5.128.252.62.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer > > inktomi2-ren.server.ntl.com. > > > > > >[WHOIS.RIPE.NET] > > >inetnum: 62.252.128.0 - 62.252.159.255 > > >netname: NTL > > >descr: NTL Internet > > >descr: Renfrew site > > >country: GB > > >admin-c: NNMC1-RIPE > > >tech-c: NNMC1-RIPE > > >status: ASSIGNED PA > > >mnt-by: AS5089-MNT > > >changed: hostmaster@ntli.net 20010706 > > >changed: hostmaster@ntli.net 20020815 > > >source: RIPE > > > > > >GEIS Webpage is hosted at NTL.com: > > > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.... > > > > > >Conclusion: its possible this maybe Mark McCarron > > posting from website cgi > > > or otherwise redirecting from it > > > > > > > > > > > We are both on the same network, with access to the > > same rotating proxy hosted by NTL to assist engineers > > in bypassing the cache. > > > > > > > > > > >From: "C. Wegrzyn" > > >CC: "'asrg@ietf.org'" > > >Subject: Re: [Asrg] Some important comments > > >Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:55:53 -0400 > > > > > >While GEIS might have some merit I find it funny that > > a person that > > >is "rearchitecting" the whole eMail infrastructure of > > the internet > > >doesn't know the simplest things about the current > > system! > > > > > >Chuck Wegrzyn > > > > > > > > > Are you not the person who suggested using a VPN for > > email. You have some nerve of accusing Mr McCarron of > > not understanding email infrastructure. There is quite > > clearly more technical knowledge in his foot than is in > > your head. > > > > B Hamilton > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > Sign up for ICQmail at http://www.icq.com/icqmail/signup.html > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Jul 7 17:14:22 2003 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 RAA16410 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:14:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZdJ4-0006yw-Rf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:13:55 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67LDsNg026839 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:13:54 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZdJ4-0006yo-Hb for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:13:54 -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 RAA16372; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:13:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZdIE-0006hS-9o; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:13:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZdHX-0006cD-Je for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:12:20 -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 RAA16166 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:12:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZdHU-0002zF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:12:16 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZdHP-0002z6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:12:11 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h67LC2ch005335; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 14:12:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 14:12:02 -0700 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D22EB@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , "'gep2@terabites.com'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] [IP] A Simpler, More Personal Key to Protect Online Me ssages MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=SHA1; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0092_01C344AA.DF33AA20"; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 7 Jul 2003 14:12:00 -0700 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0092_01C344AA.DF33AA20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I finally got full net access (was on the RIM earlier) This does look like a legit firm, it is identity based cryptography. However it is unlikely to affect us since our problem is authentication and not encryption. In an encryption scheme you have to know the recipient's email before you send a message, hence the need for identity based cryptography or a directory. To authenticate you can send a certificate inband, so the problem that is being solved is not really relevant to us. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 3:46 PM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; 'gep2@terabites.com'; 'asrg@ietf.org' > Subject: Re: [Asrg] [IP] A Simpler, More Personal Key to > Protect Online > Me ssages > > > The original NY Times article has this relevant quote from > Bruce Schneier: > > "A second challenge will be that in an increasingly online world, > public-key systems have become far easier to use, said Bruce > Schneier, a > cryptography expert who is founder and chief technical officer of > Counterpane Internet Security. "Nowadays its easy to look up > a key," he > said. "That has been solved by ubiquitous Internet access." > > At 12:03 PM 7/7/2003 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > > >This sounds like it is an identity based encryption scheme > although it could > >also be snakeoil. > > > >You can think of this as a scheme where someones public key > is a simple > >function of their email address. This means that there is no need for > >directory infrastructure etc. > > > >The drawback is that to make the scheme work you have to > have a way of > >distributing peoples private keys from a central issuer. > There is no way to > >revoke public keys either. > > > >Most people seem to want to generate their own keypairs and > never reveal the > >private key. In practice running a directory infrastructure > is not a real > >problem. Running x500 is a problem, but dns srv records > pointing to an xkms > >server would work fine. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > >From: Yakov Shafranovich > >Sent: Mon Jul 07 11:44:05 2003 > >To: gep2@terabites.com; asrg@ietf.org > >Subject: Re: [Asrg] [IP] A Simpler, More Personal Key > to Protect > >Online Messages > > > >Its described in detail at: > > > >http://crypto.stanford.edu/ibe/ > > > >At 12:26 PM 7/7/2003 0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > > > > >I thought this was interesting... any implications for us here? > > > > > >One obvious issue is how this handles things like mailing lists and > > >digests and > > >such which group messages from many different original > senders, and where > > >each > > >original sender has no idea of the E-mail address of the ultimate > >destination > > >recipients. (Would it be sufficient for the list software > to decode and > > >re-encode messages being processed? But then they'd need > to re-encode > > >separately for each digest recipient...) > > > > > > > > > > > ><---- Begin Forwarded Message ----> > > >Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 04:10:17 -0400 > > >Subject: [IP] A Simpler, More Personal Key to Protect > Online Messages > > >From: Dave Farber > > >To: ip > > >Reply-To: dave@farber.net > > > > > > > > >------ Forwarded Message > > >From: "the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow" > > >Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:46:24 +0200 > > >To: "Dave E-mail Pamphleteer Farber" > > >Subject: A Simpler, More Personal Key to Protect Online Messages > > > > > >A Simpler, More Personal Key to Protect Online Messages > > > > > >By JOHN MARKOFF > > >The New York Times > > > > > >PALO ALTO, Calif., July 6 - A Silicon Valley start-up > company on Tuesday > > >plans to unveil a new approach to sending secure > electronic messages and > > >protecting data, a simpler alternative to current > encryption systems, which > > >use long digital numbers, called public keys. > > > > > >The new company, Voltage Security, which is based here, > instead uses > >another > > >unique identifier as the public key: the message recipient's e-mail > >address. > > > > > >Under the Voltage system, the sender of a message uses > software that > > >converts the recipient's e-mail address into a number and > then encrypts the > > >message using a mathematical formula. The recipient can > then use a similar > > >formula in conjunction with a secret key to decode the > message. The company > > >says it would be almost impossible for an eavesdropper to > use the formula. > > >The software can be used with several existing PC e-mail programs. > > > > > >--snip-- > > > > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/07/technology/07CODE.html > > > > > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > -=-=-=-=- > > >geoff.goodfellow@iconia.com * Prague - CZ * telephone +420 > 603 706 558 > > >"success is getting what you want & happiness is wanting > what you get" > > > >http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/01/biztech/articles/17 drop.html > >http://www.livejournal.com/users/a2gsg/ > > > > > > > >------ End of Forwarded Message > > > >------------------------------------- > >Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ > > > > > ><---- End Forwarded Message ----> > > > >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 > >_______________________________________________ >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 ------=_NextPart_000_0092_01C344AA.DF33AA20 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIILizCCA6Yw ggMPoAMCAQICEHWNgosXAgaqes2nmr0jsCgwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwgcExCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVT MRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjE8MDoGA1UECxMzQ2xhc3MgMiBQdWJsaWMgUHJpbWFy eSBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0aW9uIEF1dGhvcml0eSAtIEcyMTowOAYDVQQLEzEoYykgMTk5OCBWZXJpU2ln biwgSW5jLiAtIEZvciBhdXRob3JpemVkIHVzZSBvbmx5MR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVz dCBOZXR3b3JrMB4XDTk5MDIyNTAwMDAwMFoXDTA5MDIyNDIzNTk1OVowga0xFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZl cmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMUkwRwYDVQQLE0BV c2UgaXMgc3ViamVjdCB0byB0ZXJtcyBhdCBodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhLWty IChjKTk5MSYwJAYDVQQDEx1WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAyIFBlcnNvbm5lbCBDQTCBnzANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQEFAAOBjQAwgYkCgYEApwRsD6Jyt0oGLvjXKSw0nYK8SJFKx6z56fy5WXixVcBTWLHPbxY7 wUnVy/RuzOHMy7XHLk6IqjTpttBbfD4VVzThGLz/3fWvZ1kgCuU96oiKQNKaiRMpqbbV26d+4ec3 JJP9lHRNeuQybUzoXBaXr92S2WaKFGbk6loDqD1f+wsCAwEAAaOBsDCBrTARBglghkgBhvhCAQEE BAMCAQYwDwYDVR0TBAgwBgEB/wIBATALBgNVHQ8EBAMCAQYwRAYDVR0gBD0wOzA5BgtghkgBhvhF AQcXAjAqMCgGCCsGAQUFBwIBFhxodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhMDQGA1UdHwQt MCswKaAnoCWGI2h0dHA6Ly9jcmwudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3BjYTItZzIuY3JsMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEB BQUAA4GBAFJetpXbb3ymfgX2VIU72RqKRVlffMJl7vlA3lRux5ASgCQ8QKNj7IUf9R4bico9juNL Lt+cG+6O51S5VpP+29HERPjLnECdkqzFzgTxEUbsiLyYyIwhfTeczGu9NKWTjL2cOR3qp5wazfVH bSxzE2NqIS5afYd9vEy+8scDwoy2MIIDwDCCAymgAwIBAgIQSsgAA2Nh1BUDFvGGNpu3zTANBgkq hkiG9w0BAQUFADCBrTEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWdu IFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxSTBHBgNVBAsTQFVzZSBpcyBzdWJqZWN0IHRvIHRlcm1zIGF0IGh0dHBz Oi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEta3IgKGMpOTkxJjAkBgNVBAMTHVZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNz IDIgUGVyc29ubmVsIENBMB4XDTk5MDIyNTAwMDAwMFoXDTA5MDIyMzIzNTk1OVowgawxFzAVBgNV BAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMUkwRwYD VQQLE0BVc2UgaXMgc3ViamVjdCB0byB0ZXJtcyBhdCBodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20v cnBhLWtyIChjKTk5MSUwIwYDVQQDExxWZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAyIEVtcGxveWVlIENBMIGfMA0G CSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDAitGHYaLqMANVawg28Jf6GlQ1JB/ofZ3Iw3PT2Eb1kS3Z OO2U17Amcyrel1BN/yIcvXAAmAxYKrGkco+lufctfGDjtd/pfU4hIWHV/DtUyaQJnLsi+aK6cGFP hkai/QVk7Ao/plh2V7sWc0R88KUNl8BspvFjCCWxBBeVoI3+fwIDAQABo4HfMIHcMCkGA1UdEQQi MCCkHjAcMRowGAYDVQQDExFQcml2YXRlTGFiZWwxLTExODARBglghkgBhvhCAQEEBAMCAQYwDwYD VR0TBAgwBgEB/wIBADALBgNVHQ8EBAMCAQYwRAYDVR0gBD0wOzA5BgtghkgBhvhFAQcXAjAqMCgG CCsGAQUFBwIBFhxodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhMDgGA1UdHwQxMC8wLaAroCmG J2h0dHA6Ly9jcmwudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL1ZTQ2xhc3MySW50LmNybDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOB gQA2GP0zYNYX0wS12FRfUhrlkggo9KJA2sNbjBqGl++uohX+bMTOL8gByjO+8nlYM5eXkkVwWk4o Hd33wYhOG4dXAj2TJdl+TnI1iUkXs7l3L20O+aSIJcHOdnNlaQWTd+f9k5YYOE1YbHqd6NKb6NDb if1JwnUEA5el1JaB2CNB8DCCBBkwggOCoAMCAQICED71tdHM9i4jiA298PD00EgwDQYJKoZIhvcN AQEEBQAwgawxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVz dCBOZXR3b3JrMUkwRwYDVQQLE0BVc2UgaXMgc3ViamVjdCB0byB0ZXJtcyBhdCBodHRwczovL3d3 dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhLWtyIChjKTk5MSUwIwYDVQQDExxWZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAyIEVt cGxveWVlIENBMB4XDTAzMDMwNjAwMDAwMFoXDTA0MDMwNTIzNTk1OVowbTERMA8GA1UEChMIVkVS SVNJR04xCzAJBgNVBAsTAkhRMRMwEQYDVQQDEwpSZWNpcGllbnRzMTYwNAYDVQQDEy1wYmFrZXIg KEhhbGxhbS1CYWtlciBQaGlsbGlwLCBWZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLikwgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAD gY0AMIGJAoGBALnb2fFyN844Cl9FoNaBDI8P+O4JliUWbYoS/H5ebiL9BiGWuVAXoo1TAaB/SHU6 Sw12kMz9z7gL+HW09pG9kofKMikS3baa49tG5t/Ap7wOnVNmLgelD5d/JuYi3d5J94N9qh2krJqP auD5FjEbnTQ/Op2NHQzivxnE+g0cdDLJAgMBAAGjggF4MIIBdDAJBgNVHRMEAjAAMFkGA1UdHwRS MFAwTqBMoEqGSGh0dHA6Ly9vbnNpdGVjcmwudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL1ZlcmlTaWduSW5jRXhjaGFu Z2VFbXBsb3llZXMvTGF0ZXN0Q1JMLmNybDALBgNVHQ8EBAMCBaAwHgYDVR0RBBcwFYETcGJha2Vy QHZlcmlzaWduLmNvbTCBrAYDVR0gBIGkMIGhMIGeBgtghkgBhvhFAQcBATCBjjAoBggrBgEFBQcC ARYcaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL0NQUzBiBggrBgEFBQcCAjBWMBUWDlZlcmlTaWdu LCBJbmMuMAMCAQEaPVZlcmlTaWduJ3MgQ1BTIGluY29ycC4gYnkgcmVmZXJlbmNlIGxpYWIuIGx0 ZC4gKGMpOTcgVmVyaVNpZ24wEQYJYIZIAYb4QgEBBAQDAgeAMB0GA1UdJQQWMBQGCCsGAQUFBwME BggrBgEFBQcDAjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQCi33oiw4urer1XI46PtYSjUD2W43Q+Ez8T9XJo Ewtc3mfUOuEw/PAH7VU3pLjUm6QfGe6W3xRzedAhAWzG1mWKK5vAq4Nnu8tpIV14PdxeXfKWM1Z0 Jw/1MHijGcoqLU9i3a1HYz/pF2A7/mibKe8Le+nJXV5q+XSAaL7K1ZcV3zGCAvgwggL0AgEBMIHB MIGsMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0 d29yazFJMEcGA1UECxNAVXNlIGlzIHN1YmplY3QgdG8gdGVybXMgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVy aXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYS1rciAoYyk5OTElMCMGA1UEAxMcVmVyaVNpZ24gQ2xhc3MgMiBFbXBsb3ll ZSBDQQIQPvW10cz2LiOIDb3w8PTQSDAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIIBjDAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZI hvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0wMzA3MDcyMTExNTdaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBS1WDbV UBnPpRZQCXPZ1WpkYMfrCTBYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQ8xSzBJMAoGCCqGSIb3DQMHMA4GCCqGSIb3DQMC AgIAgDAHBgUrDgMCBzANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBKDAHBgUrDgMCGjAKBggqhkiG9w0CBTCB0gYJKwYB BAGCNxAEMYHEMIHBMIGsMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNp Z24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29yazFJMEcGA1UECxNAVXNlIGlzIHN1YmplY3QgdG8gdGVybXMgYXQgaHR0 cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYS1rciAoYyk5OTElMCMGA1UEAxMcVmVyaVNpZ24gQ2xh c3MgMiBFbXBsb3llZSBDQQIQPvW10cz2LiOIDb3w8PTQSDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAASBgJ8bG40F zosrSQYr2Vfoz1/rXbIDUCfs4BpzWBDEjsSwm7nCypun4zw30UCHnphkVCDoenyTxoEeK5bYlalV +AK4QHznlQbcBCWFX8PYkhb0Yk75RiUkthB/p/5CregGByGdyJLO7OcjJ8XyWqTU6m9EviSgAAVc MoBQuSVnO3zJAAAAAAAA ------=_NextPart_000_0092_01C344AA.DF33AA20-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 17:18:38 2003 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 RAA16782 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:18:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZdND-0007Du-7V for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:18:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67LIBgK027760 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:18:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZdND-0007Df-3N for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:18:11 -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 RAA16754; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:18:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZdNA-00038h-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:18:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZdNA-00038e-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:18:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZdN3-0007BC-9i; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:18:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZdMo-0007Ab-9A for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:17:46 -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 RAA16713 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:17:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZdMb-00037c-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:17:33 -0400 Received: from 000-234-283.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.154.96] helo=68.27.154.96 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZdMY-00036y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:17:31 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707171604.00baa7c0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] [IP] A Simpler, More Personal Key to Protect Online Messages In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D22EB@mou1wnexm02.verisig n.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, 07 Jul 2003 17:16:50 -0400 Point taken. At 02:12 PM 7/7/2003 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: The following are the message properties: Encrypted: No Signed: Yes Contents Altered after signing: No Signature Algorithm: SHA1 I finally got full net access (was on the RIM earlier) This does look like a legit firm, it is identity based cryptography. However it is unlikely to affect us since our problem is authentication and not encryption. In an encryption scheme you have to know the recipient's email before you send a message, hence the need for identity based cryptography or a directory. To authenticate you can send a certificate inband, so the problem that is being solved is not really relevant to us. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 3:46 PM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; 'gep2@terabites.com'; 'asrg@ietf.org' > Subject: Re: [Asrg] [IP] A Simpler, More Personal Key to > Protect Online > Me ssages > > > The original NY Times article has this relevant quote from > Bruce Schneier: > > "A second challenge will be that in an increasingly online world, > public-key systems have become far easier to use, said Bruce > Schneier, a > cryptography expert who is founder and chief technical officer of > Counterpane Internet Security. "Nowadays its easy to look up > a key," he > said. "That has been solved by ubiquitous Internet access." > > At 12:03 PM 7/7/2003 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > > >This sounds like it is an identity based encryption scheme > although it could > >also be snakeoil. > > > >You can think of this as a scheme where someones public key > is a simple > >function of their email address. This means that there is no need for > >directory infrastructure etc. > > > >The drawback is that to make the scheme work you have to > have a way of > >distributing peoples private keys from a central issuer. > There is no way to > >revoke public keys either. > > > >Most people seem to want to generate their own keypairs and > never reveal the > >private key. In practice running a directory infrastructure > is not a real > >problem. Running x500 is a problem, but dns srv records > pointing to an xkms > >server would work fine. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > >From: Yakov Shafranovich > >Sent: Mon Jul 07 11:44:05 2003 > >To: gep2@terabites.com; asrg@ietf.org > >Subject: Re: [Asrg] [IP] A Simpler, More Personal Key > to Protect > >Online Messages > > > >Its described in detail at: > > > >http://crypto.stanford.edu/ibe/ > > > >At 12:26 PM 7/7/2003 0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > > > > >I thought this was interesting... any implications for us here? > > > > > >One obvious issue is how this handles things like mailing lists and > > >digests and > > >such which group messages from many different original > senders, and where > > >each > > >original sender has no idea of the E-mail address of the ultimate > >destination > > >recipients. (Would it be sufficient for the list software > to decode and > > >re-encode messages being processed? But then they'd need > to re-encode > > >separately for each digest recipient...) > > > > > > > > > > > ><---- Begin Forwarded Message ----> > > >Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 04:10:17 -0400 > > >Subject: [IP] A Simpler, More Personal Key to Protect > Online Messages > > >From: Dave Farber > > >To: ip > > >Reply-To: dave@farber.net > > > > > > > > >------ Forwarded Message > > >From: "the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow" > > >Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:46:24 +0200 > > >To: "Dave E-mail Pamphleteer Farber" > > >Subject: A Simpler, More Personal Key to Protect Online Messages > > > > > >A Simpler, More Personal Key to Protect Online Messages > > > > > >By JOHN MARKOFF > > >The New York Times > > > > > >PALO ALTO, Calif., July 6 - A Silicon Valley start-up > company on Tuesday > > >plans to unveil a new approach to sending secure > electronic messages and > > >protecting data, a simpler alternative to current > encryption systems, which > > >use long digital numbers, called public keys. > > > > > >The new company, Voltage Security, which is based here, > instead uses > >another > > >unique identifier as the public key: the message recipient's e-mail > >address. > > > > > >Under the Voltage system, the sender of a message uses > software that > > >converts the recipient's e-mail address into a number and > then encrypts the > > >message using a mathematical formula. The recipient can > then use a similar > > >formula in conjunction with a secret key to decode the > message. The company > > >says it would be almost impossible for an eavesdropper to > use the formula. > > >The software can be used with several existing PC e-mail programs. > > > > > >--snip-- > > > > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/07/technology/07CODE.html > > > > > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > -=-=-=-=- > > >geoff.goodfellow@iconia.com * Prague - CZ * telephone +420 > 603 706 558 > > >"success is getting what you want & happiness is wanting > what you get" > > > >http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/01/biztech/articles/17 drop.html > >http://www.livejournal.com/users/a2gsg/ > > > > > > > >------ End of Forwarded Message > > > >------------------------------------- > >Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ > > > > > ><---- End Forwarded Message ----> > > > >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 > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jul 7 17:24:38 2003 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 RAA16903 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:24:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZdT1-0007R3-Pq for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:24:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67LOB1L028575 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:24:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZdT1-0007Qo-Lu for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:24:11 -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 RAA16898; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:24:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZdSz-0003Bg-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:24:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZdSy-0003Bd-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:24:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZdSr-0007No-OC; Mon, 07 Jul 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 19ZdSo-0007Na-8V for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:23:58 -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 RAA16895 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:23:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZdSl-0003BO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:23:55 -0400 Received: from 000-234-283.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.154.96] helo=68.27.154.96 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZdSj-0003BE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:23:54 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707171928.037d26a0@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] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 07 Jul 2003 17:23:36 -0400 Just ran across this quote from the John Gilmore of the EFF (http://www.politechbot.com/p-04927.html): ----snip---- After years of divisive discussions, a very similar pledge/oath/policy was what EFF was able to come to agreement on: "Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages reach their intended recipients." Perhaps none of us has yet come up with a silver bullet to solve the problem of spam -- but it IS within our power to solve the problem of overzealous anti-spam measures. ----snip---- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 17:28:32 2003 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 RAA17050 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:28:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZdWn-0007dE-6y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:28:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67LS5CJ029330 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:28:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZdWn-0007cz-2j for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:28:05 -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 RAA17040; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:28:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZdWk-0003Es-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:28:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZdWk-0003Ep-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:28:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZdWi-0007b7-UJ; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:28:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZdWM-0007am-H1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:27:38 -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 RAA17011 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:27:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZdWK-0003Ed-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:27:36 -0400 Received: from 000-234-283.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.154.96] helo=68.27.154.96) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZdWH-0003EU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:27:34 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707172701.00b5b968@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Christopher Bird" , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Does anyone remember what happened 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, 07 Jul 2003 17:27:12 -0400 At 03:15 PM 7/7/2003 -0500, Christopher Bird wrote: >A while back (probably 2 or 3 years) there used to be an email service >called either msgto.com or mailto.com or something like that. It worked >by the following (rather clumsy, but quite effective) method. > >It kept a list of people who I authenticated as legitimate mailers to me >in its address list. >Any mail from someone in that list was automatically authenticated >Any mail from someone not in that list was held in abeyance and an email >sent to the return address of that piece of mail. If the person at\the >other end confirmed that they did indeed send it, then the mail was >forwarded to me and placed in a quarantine box for my approval >(whitelist) or disapproval (blacklist). I haven't heard of it but it sounds like C/R with message verification. I believe John Fenley or someone else a while back proposed that C/R system verify that messages were actually sent. Others have proposed similar "callback" methods as well. 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 Jul 7 17:33:36 2003 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 RAA17160 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:33:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zdbe-0007td-4E for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:33:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67LX66m030348 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 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 19Zdbe-0007tP-1M for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 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 RAA17151; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:33:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zdbb-0003H4-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:33:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zdbb-0003H1-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:33:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZdbZ-0007q8-4D; Mon, 07 Jul 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 19Zdah-0007ov-CJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:32:07 -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 RAA17136 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:32:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zdae-0003Go-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:32:05 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zdae-0003Gl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:32:04 -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 <20030707213357.GFKJ28645.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:33:57 -0400 Message-ID: <3F09E6D7.3050503@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: Christopher Bird , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Does anyone remember what happened to.... References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707172701.00b5b968@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707172701.00b5b968@solidmatrix.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, 07 Jul 2003 17:32:07 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't know if they are still around but I do know a number of C/R systems have popped up in the last 3-4 months. Chuck Wegrzyn Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > At 03:15 PM 7/7/2003 -0500, Christopher Bird wrote: > >> A while back (probably 2 or 3 years) there used to be an email service >> called either msgto.com or mailto.com or something like that. It worked >> by the following (rather clumsy, but quite effective) method. >> >> It kept a list of people who I authenticated as legitimate mailers to me >> in its address list. >> Any mail from someone in that list was automatically authenticated >> Any mail from someone not in that list was held in abeyance and an email >> sent to the return address of that piece of mail. If the person at\the >> other end confirmed that they did indeed send it, then the mail was >> forwarded to me and placed in a quarantine box for my approval >> (whitelist) or disapproval (blacklist). > > > I haven't heard of it but it sounds like C/R with message > verification. I believe John Fenley or someone else a while back > proposed that C/R system verify that messages were actually sent. > Others have proposed similar "callback" methods as well. > > 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 > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 17:46:37 2003 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 RAA17503 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:46:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZdoH-0000Pf-Ns for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:46:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67Lk9nX001587 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:46:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZdoH-0000PW-IU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:46:09 -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 RAA17497; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:46:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZdoE-0003MW-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:46:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZdoE-0003MT-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:46:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZdoA-0000KP-4H; Mon, 07 Jul 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 19Zdo3-0000Fl-8X for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:45:55 -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 RAA17487 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:45:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zdo0-0003ME-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:45:52 -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 19Zdnz-0003M0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:45:51 -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 19ZZsw-0000I0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:34:42 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:23:36 EDT." <5.2.0.9.2.20030707171928.037d26a0@pop.pocketmail.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: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:34:41 -0400 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Just ran across this quote from the John Gilmore of the EFF > (http://www.politechbot.com/p-04927.html): > > ----snip---- > After years of divisive discussions, a very similar pledge/oath/policy was > what EFF was able to come to agreement on: > > "Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages reach > their intended recipients." I disagree, out of principle. People should have a choice. We should be implementing systems which enforce choice (e.g. consent), rather than absolutes. Some people may see that rejecting some small percentage of "valid" mail gets rid of large amounts of spam. That is, in many cases, false positives are inversely correlated with false negatives. The more you fight to lower the false positives, the more you may increase the false negatives. I would rather say: "Any spam fighting system must be designed so as to allow the desires of the recipients to be implemented. No spam fighting system should be designed so as to throw away any non-spam email as part of its measures, unless the recipient of that email specifically instructs the system to do so." By focussing on the desires of the recipient, rather than on absolute statements, we give ourselves more flexibility in designing systems. e.g. An ISP hosts 1000 spammers, and one "real" user. Everyone in the world tells that ISP (or his upstream provider) that he's sending too much spam, and they don't want to see *any* SMTP traffic from him. The one "real" user is screwed, but only because everyone in the world individually decides they don't want his mail. In John Gilmore's philosophy, enforcing the wishes of everyone in the world (but one) would be forbidden, because one person could no longer send mail. Even worse, that philosophy has mandated that John gets to make consent statements about the email I receive (I must consent to ALL non-spam email), but I do not get to make consent statements about my own email (I accept only PGP signed messages). I don't find that acceptable. I would rather enforce consent than embrace philosophical ideals. Any anti-spam system must be designed to enforce consent, and not ideals. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 18:25:45 2003 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 SAA19914 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:25:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZeQA-0002I7-ME for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:25:19 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67MPIC3008807 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:25:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZeQA-0002Hy-FW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:25:18 -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 SAA19900; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:25:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZeQ7-0003hk-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:25:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZeQ6-0003hh-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:25:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZePt-0002Fi-HE; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:25:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZeP7-0002Dc-4w for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:24:13 -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 SAA19840 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:24:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZeP3-0003gy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:24:09 -0400 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org ([212.17.35.15]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZeP2-0003gv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:24:09 -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 h67MN5B16079; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 23:23:06 +0100 Received: by jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 21E8616F10; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 23:23:58 +0100 (IST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E6B3F87B; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:23:58 -0700 (PDT) To: "Alan DeKok" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through In-Reply-To: Message from "Alan DeKok" of "Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:34:41 EDT." 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: <20030707222358.21E8616F10@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, 07 Jul 2003 15:23:53 -0700 Alan DeKok writes: > "Any spam fighting system must be designed so as to allow the > desires of the recipients to be implemented. No spam fighting system > should be designed so as to throw away any non-spam email as part of > its measures, unless the recipient of that email specifically > instructs the system to do so." > > By focussing on the desires of the recipient, rather than on > absolute statements, we give ourselves more flexibility in designing > systems. > > e.g. An ISP hosts 1000 spammers, and one "real" user. Everyone in > the world tells that ISP (or his upstream provider) that he's sending > too much spam, and they don't want to see *any* SMTP traffic from him. > The one "real" user is screwed, but only because everyone in the world > individually decides they don't want his mail. > > In John Gilmore's philosophy, enforcing the wishes of everyone in > the world (but one) would be forbidden, because one person could no > longer send mail. Even worse, that philosophy has mandated that John > gets to make consent statements about the email I receive (I must > consent to ALL non-spam email), but I do not get to make consent > statements about my own email (I accept only PGP signed messages). > > I don't find that acceptable. I would rather enforce consent than > embrace philosophical ideals. Any anti-spam system must be designed > to enforce consent, and not ideals. Agreed. This is a philosophical ideal; the real world does not operate in a boolean, white-and-black mode; there are always grey areas and compromises. --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 18:52:41 2003 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 SAA20575 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:52:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zeq9-0003eS-3q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:52:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67Mq9gc014030 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:52:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zeq9-0003eD-0j for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:52:09 -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 SAA20565; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:52:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zeq5-0003tl-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:52:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zeq5-0003ti-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:52:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zeq1-0003bB-W7; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:52:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zep8-0003Tz-RI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:51:06 -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 SAA20520 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:51:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zep5-0003tH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:51:03 -0400 Received: from 000-234-283.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.154.96] helo=68.27.154.96) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zep3-0003tC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:51:02 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707185041.00bc0590@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: "Eric D. Williams" 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] 3. Requirements - 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: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:50:42 -0400 Is there somebody in the group working on the requirements document currently? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 18:57:31 2003 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 SAA20774 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:57:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zeuv-00040D-Ps for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:57:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67Mv5AI015379 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:57:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zeuv-0003zy-La for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:57:05 -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 SAA20765; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:57:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zeus-0003x1-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:57:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zeur-0003wy-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:57:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zeur-0003wx-9x; Mon, 07 Jul 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 19Zeu8-0003wU-GQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:56:16 -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 SAA20752 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:56:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zeu5-0003wk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:56:13 -0400 Received: from 000-234-283.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.154.96] helo=68.27.154.96) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zeu2-0003wh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:56:11 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707185546.00b3ca80@solidmatrix.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] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through 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, 07 Jul 2003 18:55:50 -0400 At 01:34 PM 7/7/2003 -0400, you wrote: >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > Just ran across this quote from the John Gilmore of the EFF > > (http://www.politechbot.com/p-04927.html): > > > > ----snip---- > > After years of divisive discussions, a very similar pledge/oath/policy was > > what EFF was able to come to agreement on: > > > > "Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages > reach > > their intended recipients." >.... > > I would rather say: > > "Any spam fighting system must be designed so as to allow the >desires of the recipients to be implemented. No spam fighting system >should be designed so as to throw away any non-spam email as part of >its measures, unless the recipient of that email specifically >instructs the system to do so." >... I agree as well, I just wanted to clear up this issue. The very nature of consent-based system is against the philosophy proposed by the EFF. This is something that must be kept in mind. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 18:58:31 2003 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 SAA20811 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:58:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zevr-00047e-8a for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:58:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67Mw3PB015840 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:58:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zevr-00047P-54 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:58:03 -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 SAA20796; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:57:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zevo-0003xQ-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:58:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zevn-0003xN-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:57:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zevo-00044O-S2; Mon, 07 Jul 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 19Zev2-00043R-AI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:57:12 -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 SAA20770 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:57:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zeuz-0003x8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:57:09 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zeux-0003x5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:57:08 -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 h67Mv2A8019847; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:57:02 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA13895; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:57:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16137.64189.79625.460124@world.std.com> To: Dave Crocker Cc: Barry Shein , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 6. Solutions - Longterm - Replacing SMTP (Re: [Asrg] Bogus reasoning) In-Reply-To: <23209034.20030705181826@brandenburg.com> References: <009901c340e6$802a08c0$04555ccc@kensington> <3F036024.5050607@garbagedump.com> <16131.34958.614185.654845@world.std.com> <23209034.20030705181826@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: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:57:01 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On July 5, 2003 at 18:18 dcrocker@brandenburg.com (Dave Crocker) wrote: > Barry, > > BS> The idea of charging isn't all that difficult, you just have to find > BS> an amenable model. > > Forgive me, Barry, but the idea of world peace isn't all that difficult > either. You just have to find an amenable model. I'm not sure sarcasm adds a lot to the knowledge base. > Effective real change to complex, existing human social systems is > always difficult, and frequently has proved impossible. > > I said always. > > Feel free to cite large-scale examples to the contrary. Yeah well this is just spam not world peace. Besides, we've had relative world peace since WWII and most skirmishes have been quite localized (no fun for the locals caught in the middle, but no world wars either, and the cold war wasn't a war it was a metaphor for diplomatic tension.) And there's a reason for that, I'm not pursuing this without purpose. Towards the end of WWII some of the larger nations who were allies at the time sat down (e.g., at the Bretton Woods meetings, also the IMF) and came up with a game theoretic way to make large scale war at least among major industrialized nations less likely. What they did was agree to become interdependent in the manufacture of major weapons components. So, a jet fighter might be built in the US (Lockheed), but its engines or crucial navigational parts etc might be built by the UK (Rolls-Royce) or Sweden (Volvo), etc. Which makes it that much more difficult for the US to go to war against the UK or Sweden or any of the other nations mutually participating in this. For example, there'd be quite a bit of warning that something was up when the nation which planned to become belligerent started building parts of war machinery it had agreed to rely on other countries for. It's certainly not the only thing which keeps the US and UK out of war with each other, obviously some pairings are highly unlikely anyhow, but there are a lot of other nations involved who are more likely to have fall-outs. Thus we've seen war shift more and more to the "outsiders" who generally don't fit into this rather clever scheme (and can't be made to easily fit, they need another solution entirely.) But at least we keep many of the nations who really could conduct massive, destructive, widespread, warfare with each other as we saw in WWII, in a position where that's likely to be inconvenient or at least would force them to tip their hands early as they violated the terms of the alliance. The big problem today is that weapons of mass destruction (NBC) seem capable of letting nations which are industrially, technologically, and economically incapable of conducting widespread warfare in the usual model cause the kind of destruction we had hoped was contained to local skirmishing. But, as I said, you have to find the right model. So, yes, even world peace is amenable to such things. -- -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 Jul 7 19:13:35 2003 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 TAA21122 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:13:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZfAS-00052u-7K for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:13:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67ND8c0019397 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:13:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZfAR-00052N-VA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:13:07 -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 TAA21088; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:13:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZfAQ-00042w-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:13:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZfAP-00042q-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:13:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZfAK-0004xB-9b; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:13:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zf9u-0004wA-Ju for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:12:34 -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 TAA21080 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:12:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zf9t-00042g-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:12:33 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zf9s-00042c-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:12:32 -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 h67NCUA8012689; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:12:30 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA16537; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:12:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16137.65117.997711.701523@world.std.com> To: Dave Crocker Cc: Paul Judge , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. - Spam Characterization - Possible Measurements (wa s : RE: Two ways to look at spam) In-Reply-To: <10938235449.20030706191326@brandenburg.com> References: <10938235449.20030706191326@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: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:12:29 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, there's one characterization from measurements mentioned which spammers can't adapt to and that's their location (in)stability in IP space. This relates to the idea that the only reason spammers can operate effectively is because they exploit thousands of hijacked computers which gives them location mobility (not geographic but in ip space.) If this can be shown to be true via measurement it leads to the conclusion that perhaps the problem with spam is not what leads to this idea of a "consent" framework as originally proposed in this charter, but, instead, shows spam is almost entirely a security problem. Spammers can't adapt their way out of this observation because that would mean they'd have to become location immobile which means we could just block them and that'd be the end of 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 exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 19:13:40 2003 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 TAA21137 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:13:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZfAX-00053Q-1a for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:13:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67NDDbc019422 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:13:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZfAW-00053B-TI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:13:12 -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 TAA21089; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:13:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZfAQ-00042t-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:13:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZfAP-00042p-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:13:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZfAJ-0004wh-Sg; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:12:59 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zf9a-0004vc-0b for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:12:14 -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 TAA21077 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:12:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zf9Y-00042Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:12:12 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zf9X-00042T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:12:11 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:10:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:59:15 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Cc: "'Eric D. Williams'" , "'Brand@responsible.com'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - document 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, 7 Jul 2003 18:59:14 -0400 Yes, Eric Williams and Russell Brand were working diligently on the document. The last version sent to the list can be found here: https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05084.html There was little feedback to the document on the list. Eric and Russell: is there a new version that you want to send out soon or should interested folks provide feedback on the version above? > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 6:51 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Cc: Eric D. Williams > Subject: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - document > > > Is there somebody in the group working on the requirements > document currently? > > 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 Mon Jul 7 19:25:34 2003 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 TAA21359 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:25:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZfM2-0005fQ-8S for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:25:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67NP6qD021783 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:25:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZfM2-0005fG-3X for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:25:06 -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 TAA21343; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:25:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZfM0-00047u-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:25:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZfLz-00047r-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:25:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZfLx-0005cv-L0; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:25:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZfLF-0005aa-QX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:24:17 -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 TAA21334 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:24:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZfLE-00047i-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:24:16 -0400 Received: from dns.novitraq.com ([204.92.85.2]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZfLC-00047U-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:24:15 -0400 Received: from kensington (kensington [204.92.85.4]) by novitraq.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/2.3.0.1402) id NVTRD8AB56DC for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:20:44 -0400 From: "Elric Pedder" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through Organization: Novitraq Inc Message-ID: <007d01c344de$d00e6a60$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: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707171928.037d26a0@pop.pocketmail.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: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:23:45 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Yakov Shafranovich > Sent: July 7, 2003 17:24 > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through > Just ran across this quote from the John Gilmore of the EFF > (http://www.politechbot.com/p-04927.html): > > ----snip---- > After years of divisive discussions, a very similar > pledge/oath/policy was > what EFF was able to come to agreement on: > > "Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam > messages reach > their intended recipients." > > Perhaps none of us has yet come up with a silver bullet to solve the > problem of spam -- but it IS within our power to solve the problem of > overzealous anti-spam measures. > ----snip---- I don't believe you can stop false positives -- if only because people will have widely varying opinions on what SPAM (to them) is. It is, however, very dangerous to allow false positives because if anything the perceived "reliability" of the Internet becomes compromised. I would recommend "Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all messages either reach the intended recipient, or are returned to the sender, or the sender notified." This is the basic principle of SMTP but many anti-spam solutions simply discard messages or file them for the user to view later. As Kee mentioned awhile back, this often doesn't happen. SMTP certainly supports this architecture with minimal additional bandwidth and anti-spam solutions could be integrated at the SMTP level, or send notifications independently. -- 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 Mon Jul 7 19:27:39 2003 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 TAA21395 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:27:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZfO4-0005u9-5p for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:27:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67NRCgB022675 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:27:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZfO4-0005sl-0z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:27:12 -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 TAA21383; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:27:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZfO2-00048W-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:27:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZfO1-00048T-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:27:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZfNt-0005qu-ER; Mon, 07 Jul 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 19ZfN7-0005qP-Kw for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:26:13 -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 TAA21378 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:26:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZfN6-00048Q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:26:12 -0400 Received: from 000-234-283.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.154.96] helo=68.27.154.96) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZfN3-00048N-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:26:10 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707191916.00bc0590@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] 3. Requirements - document Cc: "'Eric D. Williams'" , "'Brand@responsible.com'" 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, 07 Jul 2003 19:20:30 -0400 As I mentioned in a separate thread, it is important this requirements document, the "Technical Considerations" document written by Dave Crocker and co., and the consent model document all fit together. At 06:59 PM 7/7/2003 -0400, Paul Judge wrote: >Yes, Eric Williams and Russell Brand were working diligently on the >document. The last version sent to the list can be found here: >https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05084.html > >There was little feedback to the document on the list. > >Eric and Russell: is there a new version that you want to send out soon or >should interested folks provide feedback on the version above? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 6:51 PM > > To: asrg@ietf.org > > Cc: Eric D. Williams > > Subject: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - document > > > > > > Is there somebody in the group working on the requirements > > document currently? > > > > Yakov > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 19:41:34 2003 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 TAA21640 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:41:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZfbX-0006SF-Oo for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:41:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h67Nf7W1024805 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:41:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZfbX-0006S0-Kl for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:41:07 -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 TAA21635; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:41:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZfbV-0004CT-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:41:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZfbV-0004CQ-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:41:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZfbR-0006Q9-Gg; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:41:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zfb3-0006PH-H7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:40:37 -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 TAA21628 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:40:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zfb1-0004CN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:40:35 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zfb0-0004CK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:40:34 -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 h67NeU0h021874; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:40:30 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA22484; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:40:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16138.1260.572187.759700@world.std.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707171928.037d26a0@pop.pocketmail.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707171928.037d26a0@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: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:40:28 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit And a chicken in every pot! -b On July 7, 2003 at 17:23 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > Just ran across this quote from the John Gilmore of the EFF > (http://www.politechbot.com/p-04927.html): > > ----snip---- > After years of divisive discussions, a very similar pledge/oath/policy was > what EFF was able to come to agreement on: > > "Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages reach > their intended recipients." > > Perhaps none of us has yet come up with a silver bullet to solve the > problem of spam -- but it IS within our power to solve the problem of > overzealous anti-spam measures. > ----snip---- > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 7 20:00:39 2003 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 UAA22117 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:00:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zftz-0007Du-Bw for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:00:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6800BHv027764 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:00:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zfty-0007Di-To for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:00:10 -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 UAA22107; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:00:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zftw-0004KU-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:00:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zftv-0004KQ-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:00:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zftp-00077O-Pc; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:00:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zft8-00072e-S0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:59:18 -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 TAA22071 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:59:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zft6-0004Jy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:59:17 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zft5-0004Jv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:59:16 -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 h67NxCNA011786; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:59:12 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA25590; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:59:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16138.2383.715481.777368@world.std.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: "Alan DeKok" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707185546.00b3ca80@solidmatrix.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707185546.00b3ca80@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, 7 Jul 2003 19:59:11 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On July 7, 2003 at 18:55 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > I agree as well, I just wanted to clear up this issue. The very nature of > consent-based system is against the philosophy proposed by the EFF. This is > something that must be kept in mind. Maybe we should issue a statement that the EFF is out of touch with the issue and should STFU. Nah, why bother? Out of touch people with a mission are almost never capable of acknowledging that they're out of touch -- and particularly not when they're busy convincing everyone they're experts on everything as EFF does as its raison d'etre. Besides, how can one publically diss empty platitudes like ``every child loved'' or ``poverty shouldn't be shameful''? Better to just nod and smile pleasantly, tell them of course they're right, and move on with things. -- -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 Jul 7 20:00:39 2003 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 UAA22116 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:00:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zftz-0007Dt-Bj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:00:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6800BbH027759 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:00:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zfty-0007Dd-OO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:00:10 -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 UAA22108; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:00:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zftw-0004KX-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:00:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zftv-0004KP-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:00:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zftq-00077X-Eu; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:00:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZftO-00072n-EK for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:59:34 -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 TAA22075 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:59:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZftM-0004K4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:59:32 -0400 Received: from 000-234-283.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.154.96] helo=68.27.154.96 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZftK-0004K1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:59:31 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707195908.00b68190@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Elric Pedder" , From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through 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, 07 Jul 2003 19:59:09 -0400 At 07:23 PM 7/7/2003 -0400, Elric Pedder wrote: > > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of Yakov Shafranovich > > Sent: July 7, 2003 17:24 > > To: asrg@ietf.org > > Subject: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through > > > Just ran across this quote from the John Gilmore of the EFF > > (http://www.politechbot.com/p-04927.html): > > > > ----snip---- > > After years of divisive discussions, a very similar > > pledge/oath/policy was > > what EFF was able to come to agreement on: > > > > "Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam > > messages reach > > their intended recipients." > > > > Perhaps none of us has yet come up with a silver bullet to solve the > > problem of spam -- but it IS within our power to solve the problem of > > overzealous anti-spam measures. > > ----snip---- > >I don't believe you can stop false positives -- if only because >people will have widely varying opinions on what SPAM (to them) >is. It is, however, very dangerous to allow false positives >because if anything the perceived "reliability" of the Internet >becomes compromised. > >I would recommend > >"Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all messages >either reach the intended recipient, or are returned to the >sender, or the sender notified." How would this fit within the consent model? If a RECEIVER revokes consent for a specific sender, then messages from that SENDER cannot be delivered? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 20:10:34 2003 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 UAA22280 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:10:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zg3Z-0007yv-Q1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:10:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h680A5WJ030674 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:10:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zg3Z-0007yf-AT for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:10:05 -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 UAA22262; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:10:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zg3X-0004Nv-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:10:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zg3W-0004Ns-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:10:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zg3V-0007vW-U2; Mon, 07 Jul 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 19Zg2j-0007uv-2L for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:09:13 -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 UAA22249 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:09:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zg2h-0004NO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:09:11 -0400 Received: from pcls4.std.com ([199.172.62.106] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zg2g-0004NL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:09:10 -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 h68098rU022001; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:09:08 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA27617; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:09:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16138.2979.664198.680652@world.std.com> To: "Elric Pedder" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through In-Reply-To: <007d01c344de$d00e6a60$04555ccc@kensington> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707171928.037d26a0@pop.pocketmail.com> <007d01c344de$d00e6a60$04555ccc@kensington> 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, 7 Jul 2003 20:09:07 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On July 7, 2003 at 19:23 elric@novitraq.com (Elric Pedder) wrote: > "Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all messages > either reach the intended recipient, or are returned to the > sender, or the sender notified." Yeah, I'm sure Ralsky et al will thank everyone for the help. This really only makes sense when we again think of spam like an individual sending a msg which one may or may not want. Howsabout when it's 200+ hijacked servers banging at you full-speed with the same spam? That's the reality. Is the proposal to send the hundreds of msgs per minute each a proper handwritten no thank you note? It's amazing to me how many different people (specifically the EFF in this case) will step up to the plate with a shallow, harebrained, mental model of the spam problem and begin offering authoritative advice. -- -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 Jul 7 20:31:44 2003 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 UAA22875 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:31:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZgO4-0000Ov-1w for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:31:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h680VGo8001536 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:31:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZgO3-0000Oh-Rb for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:31:15 -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 UAA22849; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:31:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZgO1-0004e0-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:31:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZgO1-0004dx-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:31:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZgNo-0000Mi-T5; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:31:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZgNN-0000M8-LS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:30:33 -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 UAA22799 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:30:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZgNL-0004dd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:30:31 -0400 Received: from 000-234-283.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.154.96] helo=68.27.154.96) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZgNE-0004dC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:30:28 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707202503.00b3dcf0@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] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through In-Reply-To: <16138.2979.664198.680652@world.std.com> References: <007d01c344de$d00e6a60$04555ccc@kensington> <5.2.0.9.2.20030707171928.037d26a0@pop.pocketmail.com> <007d01c344de$d00e6a60$04555ccc@kensington> 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, 07 Jul 2003 20:29:44 -0400 At 08:09 PM 7/7/2003 -0400, you wrote: >On July 7, 2003 at 19:23 elric@novitraq.com (Elric Pedder) wrote: > > "Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all messages > > either reach the intended recipient, or are returned to the > > sender, or the sender notified." > >Yeah, I'm sure Ralsky et al will thank everyone for the help. > >This really only makes sense when we again think of spam like an >individual sending a msg which one may or may not want. > >Howsabout when it's 200+ hijacked servers banging at you full-speed >with the same spam? That's the reality. > >Is the proposal to send the hundreds of msgs per minute each a proper >handwritten no thank you note? >.... Therefore just to clarify your statement, are you suggesting these spam emails should not be rejected but rather thrown away silently? So within the consent model, if you specified that you do not wish to receive email from dial-up IP addresses, any email coming from those addresses should be thrown away and not even reported or tracked somewhere? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 20:35:35 2003 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 UAA22957 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:35:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZgRj-0000eg-JS for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:35:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h680Z3WW002512 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:35:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZgRj-0000eR-F5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:35:03 -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 UAA22930; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:35:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZgRg-0004g6-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:35:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZgRg-0004g3-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:35:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZgRh-0000Y8-4D; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:35:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZgRQ-0000Xq-2t for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:34:44 -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 UAA22926 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:34:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZgRN-0004fk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:34:41 -0400 Received: from 000-234-283.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.154.96] helo=68.27.154.96 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZgRG-0004f1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:34:38 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707203231.00ba1150@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Barry Shein , Dave Crocker From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. - Spam Characterization - Possible Measurements (wa s : RE: Two ways to look at spam) Cc: Paul Judge , "'asrg@ietf.org'" In-Reply-To: <16137.65117.997711.701523@world.std.com> References: <10938235449.20030706191326@brandenburg.com> <10938235449.20030706191326@brandenburg.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, 07 Jul 2003 20:33:21 -0400 At 07:12 PM 7/7/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: >Well, there's one characterization from measurements mentioned which >spammers can't adapt to and that's their location (in)stability in IP >space. > >This relates to the idea that the only reason spammers can operate >effectively is because they exploit thousands of hijacked computers >which gives them location mobility (not geographic but in ip space.) > >If this can be shown to be true via measurement it leads to the >conclusion that perhaps the problem with spam is not what leads to >this idea of a "consent" framework as originally proposed in this >charter, but, instead, shows spam is almost entirely a security >problem. > >Spammers can't adapt their way out of this observation because that >would mean they'd have to become location immobile which means we >could just block them and that'd be the end of spam. Paul, Perhaps we can start seeing some of the data based on these characteristics? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 20:41:42 2003 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 UAA23007 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:41:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZgXi-0001En-F3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:41:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h680fEtn004753 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:41:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZgXi-0001Ea-CE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:41:14 -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 UAA23003; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:41:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZgXg-0004iU-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:41:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZgXf-0004iR-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:41:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZgXW-0001Ch-5B; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:41:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZgWg-00016e-P0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 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 UAA22989 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:40:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZgWe-0004hz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:40:08 -0400 Received: from mnr1.microneil.com ([216.88.36.96]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZgWd-0004hm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:40:07 -0400 Received: by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix, from userid 93) id 60C7329C03D; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:39:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MicroNeil.com (mail.microneil.com [216.88.36.161]) by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3123429C01E for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:39:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from toshiba-user.microneil.com [63.86.179.204] by MicroNeil.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.05) id A2A16B00A0; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:38:57 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.0.20030707201730.00b58ba0@mail.microneil.com> X-Sender: madscientist@mail.microneil.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 To: From: Madscientist Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. - Spam Characterization - Possible Measurements (wa s : RE: Two ways to look at spam) In-Reply-To: <16137.65117.997711.701523@world.std.com> References: <10938235449.20030706191326@brandenburg.com> <10938235449.20030706191326@brandenburg.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Declude-Spoolname: D12a10a0.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: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:38:47 -0400 At 07:12 PM 7/7/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: >Well, there's one characterization from measurements mentioned which >spammers can't adapt to and that's their location (in)stability in IP >space. > >This relates to the idea that the only reason spammers can operate >effectively is because they exploit thousands of hijacked computers >which gives them location mobility (not geographic but in ip space.) > >If this can be shown to be true via measurement it leads to the >conclusion that perhaps the problem with spam is not what leads to >this idea of a "consent" framework as originally proposed in this >charter, but, instead, shows spam is almost entirely a security >problem. > >Spammers can't adapt their way out of this observation because that >would mean they'd have to become location immobile which means we >could just block them and that'd be the end of spam. If it were only that simple. The good news is that IP stability is a powerful tool for establishing senders and their behaviors - not perfect, but very, very good. The bad news is that the definition of spam is often very different from one RECEIVER to another... so the same IP source may be producing spam, or ham depending upon your point of view. Therefore, RECEIVER A and RECEIVER B would likely have identical policy definitions for the SENDER's identity, but different policy definitions for the disposition of the sender. ... ... ... ... A given RECEIVER may even CONSENT to receive messages from the sender under some other conditions... which further complicates the definition process, but no without bounds. _M _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 21:39:42 2003 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 VAA24080 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 21:39:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZhRr-0003HG-BK for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:39:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h681dFcG012599 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 21:39:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZhRr-0003H8-74 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:39:15 -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 VAA24053; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 21:39:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZhRo-00055k-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:39:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZhRn-00055h-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:39:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZhRd-0003F8-5w; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:39:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZhQw-0003BU-Eh for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:38:18 -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 VAA24012 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 21:38:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZhQt-00054o-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:38:15 -0400 Received: from dns.novitraq.com ([204.92.85.2]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZhQs-00054g-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:38:14 -0400 Received: from kensington (kensington [204.92.85.4]) by novitraq.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/2.3.0.1402) id NVTRD8AD57CA for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:34:38 -0400 From: "Elric Pedder" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through Organization: Novitraq Inc Message-ID: <008301c344f1$8481c4d0$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: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707195908.00b68190@solidmatrix.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: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 21:37:39 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Yakov Shafranovich > Sent: July 7, 2003 19:59 > To: Elric Pedder; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through > At 07:23 PM 7/7/2003 -0400, Elric Pedder wrote: [snip] > >I don't believe you can stop false positives -- if only because > >people will have widely varying opinions on what SPAM (to them) > >is. It is, however, very dangerous to allow false positives > >because if anything the perceived "reliability" of the Internet > >becomes compromised. > > > >I would recommend > > > >"Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all messages > >either reach the intended recipient, or are returned to the > >sender, or the sender notified." > > How would this fit within the consent model? If a RECEIVER > revokes consent for a specific sender, then messages from that > SENDER cannot be delivered? Within the consent model, notifications would be sent when RECEIVER revokes consent or when SENDER does not have consent. It is important in the revocation case because it is still possible that consent was accidentally revoked by the RECEIVER. Note that the "notification" does not have to be, necessarily, sent by the consent decision-making system. Answering 5xx after receipt of the message leaves the responsibility for notifications with the sending MTA, or the client MUA. RFC2821 provides 10 minutes for analysis of the message, which should be plenty of time to assess whether or not consent is granted (including analysis of the message content and DBL checks). Independent (post delivery) notifications are a last resort, but are still far better than simply dropping a message. -- 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 Mon Jul 7 21:52:31 2003 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 VAA24205 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 21:52:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZheG-0003eg-Nk for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:52:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h681q4e0014044 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 21:52:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZheG-0003eR-KR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:52:04 -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 VAA24201; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 21:52:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZheD-0005BI-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:52:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZheD-0005BF-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:52:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZheD-0003cW-93; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:52:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zhdc-0003c3-HB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:51:24 -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 VAA24198 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 21:51:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZhdZ-0005B3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:51:21 -0400 Received: from dns.novitraq.com ([204.92.85.2]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZhdY-0005Az-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:51:21 -0400 Received: from kensington (kensington [204.92.85.4]) by novitraq.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/2.3.0.1402) id NVTRD8AD57FB for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:47:49 -0400 From: "Elric Pedder" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through Organization: Novitraq Inc Message-ID: <008601c344f3$5c52fc70$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: <16138.2979.664198.680652@world.std.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: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 21:50:50 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Barry Shein > Sent: July 7, 2003 20:09 > To: Elric Pedder > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through > On July 7, 2003 at 19:23 elric@novitraq.com (Elric Pedder) wrote: > > "Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all messages > > either reach the intended recipient, or are returned to the > > sender, or the sender notified." > > Yeah, I'm sure Ralsky et al will thank everyone for the help. > > This really only makes sense when we again think of spam like an > individual sending a msg which one may or may not want. I agree, but unfortunately the anti-spam system cannot distinguish those cases. > Howsabout when it's 200+ hijacked servers banging at you full-speed > with the same spam? That's the reality. Ideally the notification would be issued by the servers themselves as a result of a 5xx response code during the SMTP transaction. This may help the 200+ hijacked servers' administrators notice the problem. It may be a costly process, but you are only returning one notification for each message. I don't think we can expect users to monitor their SPAM traps, and even if they did we would not have achieved much more than convenient folder management. Unwanted mail may be a nuisance, but missing wanted mail is unacceptable. The result would be that users lose faith in e-mail itself, which I believe is too costly an outcome. What will we have achieved if e-mail becomes perceived as an unreliable medium and users have to phone the recipient to see if the message has been deleted. > Is the proposal to send the hundreds of msgs per minute each a proper > handwritten no thank you note? I think a DSN would be sufficient, but if handwritten notes are the policy at your MTA then that's fine too. -- 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 Mon Jul 7 23:15:44 2003 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 XAA25413 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 23:15:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ziwl-0005ye-B4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 23:15:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h683FFEP022977 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 23:15:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ziwl-0005yW-2x for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 23:15:15 -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 XAA25408; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 23:15:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ziwj-0005pQ-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 23:15:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ziwi-0005pN-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 23:15:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZiwX-0005wa-P2; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 23:15:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zivi-0005wC-Uf for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 23:14:10 -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 XAA25394 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 23:14:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zivh-0005oo-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 23:14:09 -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 19Zivf-0005oj-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 23:14:07 -0400 Received: from ([192.168.0.1] helo=azza.com) by mail.azza.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #5) id 19ZivO-0006QN-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:13:50 -0600 Message-ID: <3F0A3714.2070108@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: Kee Hinckley , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nothing will stop spam??? References: <3F03E8F5.5040107@azza.com> <3F04C5F6.6030103@azza.com> 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: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:14:28 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 9:31 PM -0400 7/3/03, Kee Hinckley wrote: > >>> individual signs up, they would provide the consent token >>> for the FTC to use when then sent a confirmation email. The FTC WEB >> >> >> This would probably degenerate to a simple password, since anything >> else would require tight integration between the email client and the >> web browser (and a signup may occur when the email client isn't >> available, or even over the phone). That's not necessarily bad, but >> it should be recognized. The other issue here is that this requires >> modifying tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of web forms and their >> backend databases. Given that, it seems wise to make it possible to >> include the consent token in the email address, potentially as an >> option. (Although of course that won't work with the FTC site, since >> they decided to invent their own concept of what an email address >> looks like.) > I considered the possibility of having a consent token as part of the email address, something like recipient/token@mta.net. The major problem with this is that the consent token is so closely tied to the email address that it would be very easily compromised. You sell the email address and the consent token in one simple transaction. I view the consent token as a separate entity from the email address. The consent token would be inserted from some source (address book, keyboard, token repository, etc.) into a header by the MUA -- implementation details. > > Sleeping on this I came up with some more issues (okay, I didn't sleep > very well). > > 1. Like many systems, this ties in tightly with identity. If I move to > a new ISP (or Comcast gets sold *again*) my email address changes. How > do I manage notifying all of my contacts. Some people seem to think the > address book model works, but I correspond with several orders of > magnitude more people than are in my address book, and some of them I > only send mail to every few years--I don't want to have to notify them > all of a change, nor is it clear to me *how* I would notify them of a > change without hitting the consent system again. It's probably > technically feasible, albeit difficult, to do so if I know in advance of > the change--but that doesn't always happen. Right now people struggle > with simple things like transferring their address book, never mind > transferring consent. A regular occurrence on wormalert is mail from > someone to all of their contents with a brief comment like "sorry, just > mailing myself a copy of my address book". That's how they do it--they > put everyone in the to, including their new address. So. Without a > persistent concept of identity, consent is rather transient to the > recipient, never mind the sender. Yes, unfortunately, unless you have a private domain, changing email addresses requires notifying senders. But, it should not require giving out new consent tokens. The consent framework should be such that if you change ISPs, consent tokens that are currently valid would continue to be valid for your new email address at the new ISP. Some mechanism should be in place to update the new MTA for incoming mail with your old consent tokens. > > 2. If a consent token does degenerate to a password, then two problems > occur. One, it can be sold along with your email address, just as email > addresses are sold now. You've basically made it simple for someone to > transfer your consent. the only way around that is to tie a consent > token to the sender, Yes. which means complicated software, and a knowledge > of what addresses will be used to contact you. Yes. (Again, I think people > working on this should focus first on a URL scheme for whitelisting. > E.g. whitelist:some-piece-of-information-identifying-senders.) > Secondly, a single password doesn't contain information about what > you've consented to. Did I tell them I want a receipt for my order, or > that I want a daily advertisement? The single password may not be sufficient information, but the relationship of the sender to the consent token and any attributes that may be specified would be. > > Note that the latter problem is what I see as a major failing of > do-not-spam-me lists. How does a vendor know whether the presence of an > address on that list applies to what aspect of an existing business > relationship? And if it doesn't, then what's the point? They shouldn't > be sending you email anyway. This isn't an issue with phone call lists > because Sears doesn't call you up every day with a new ad, so you don't > lose anything by putting yourself on a donotcall list. It would be up to the recipient to keep track of the sender/consent token relationship. MUA software should do most of the work. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 7 23:38:35 2003 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 XAA25609 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 23:38:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZjIt-0006k6-FF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 23:38:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h683c7ij025915 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 23:38:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZjIt-0006ju-Ar for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 23:38:07 -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 XAA25605; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 23:38:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZjIr-0005u2-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 23:38:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZjIq-0005tz-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 23:38:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZjIm-0006hr-Oz; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 23:38:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZjII-0006aH-Kf for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 23:37:30 -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 XAA25595 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 23:37:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZjIG-0005tp-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 23:37:28 -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 19ZjIA-0005tm-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 23:37:27 -0400 Received: from ([192.168.0.1] helo=azza.com) by mail.azza.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #5) id 19ZjI3-0006Sn-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:37:15 -0600 Message-ID: <3F0A3C93.1050606@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: Brian Hamilton , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Some important comments 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: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:37:55 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brian Hamilton wrote: > I have been reading the posts from this group for about the last week. > I have been deciding if I should post my thoughts on the 'GIEIS' > architecture. > > As a network engineer for one of Britian's larger Internet services, I > view 'GIEIS' as being an acceptable solution. I have examined the site > almost 20 times and even put the architecture to the test using paper > and pen. I am sorry to say that I could not find any point of > weakness. I would have enjoyed proving Mr McCarron wrong. > > I think everyone on this list should carefully consider what Mr McCarron > is proposing. I understand the point about Mr McCarron being annoying > and posting frequently on the matter. On the other hand, 'GIEIS' is > only what I can describe as being a perfect architecture. There is no such thing as a perfect architecture. You would have been more credible if you had pointed out one of the weaknesses of the system (there are plenty), but as it is, you have exposed yourself as a simple shill. This posting is noise and spam. It is funny > the contrast between the creator and the architecture. > > The creation of almost 2 million jobs is a major selling point behind > 'GIEIS'. This is not a major selling point. It is a major drawback. Who is going to pay the salaries of the 2,000,000 people? The email user, that's who. They won't. They would rather receive spam, and frankly so would I. If GIEIS was the only system in the universe that could stop spam, I would opt to continue to use my filters rather than to allow greedy, self serving, self proclaimed genius and saviour of the internet, Mr. McCarron to filter all of my mail for me. (My appologies to the rest of the group, but I am sick to death of this GRIEIS). I will admit it is marketing but Mr McCarron's figures do > match up. His figures may match up, but his initial assumptions are in error. When you start in the wrong direction, and you go in the wrong direction, you end up at the wrong destination. The ISP I work for is seriously considering investing in the > implementation program of 'GIEIS'. Not only does it make excellent > business sense to do so, but it also generates an unbelievable PR > opportunity. Since the release of version 0.003 of the 'GIEIS' > proposal, high level meetings have occured to discuss the system. When > a new version appears, anyone would be lead to believe that the CEO has > arrived there are that many managers present. > > 'GIEIS' is the simply one of the best proposals we have ever encountered. > > All I would suggest is that you do not attempt to judge the system based > upon its creator. > > Brian. > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 8 00:09:57 2003 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 AAA26059 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 00:09:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZjnG-0007nw-6T for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:09:30 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6849UsT029994 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 00:09:30 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZjnG-0007nh-2B for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:09:30 -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 AAA26055; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 00:09:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZjnD-0005zs-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:09:27 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZjnD-0005zp-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:09:27 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zjmn-0007hK-2K; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:09:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZjmQ-0007cP-6H for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:08:38 -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 AAA26031 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 00:08:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZjmN-0005zc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:08:35 -0400 Received: from 000-234-283.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.154.96] helo=68.27.154.96 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZjmL-0005zZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:08:34 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030708000812.00b959f8@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] 0. General - Group Direction Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 08 Jul 2003 00:08:13 -0400 Our group was intended to do the following (from http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/minutes/asrg.htm): "ASRG was formed to UNDERSTAND the problem and collectively PROPOSE and EVALUATE solutions to allow "consent based communication." However, while we had many discussions on UNDERSTANDING the spam problem, we have not produced a document or a summary of our results on that issue. But it seems that we are currently on our way towards PROPOSING AND EVALUATING solutions by first developing the following tools: 1. Consent framework. 2. Requirements document. 3. Technical Considerations document. Using these tools we can then look back at the various proposals and start evaluating them. As for UNDERSTANDING the problem can we hope to come up with a document summarizing the problem or is since there are so many divergent views, that will not happen? In general, is there a specific roadmap or direction for the group? Perhaps we are seeking to accomplish the following goals: 1. Write up a document summarizing the problem. 2. Write up documents to be used for evaluating proposals. 3. Start evaluating solutions based on the first two steps. 4. Select areas where standards are needed and either develop them or pass on the standardization suggestions to the IETF. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 8 00:37:34 2003 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 AAA26594 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 00:37:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZkDz-00007H-PS for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:37:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h684b7Yb000441 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 00:37:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZkDz-000072-Kp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:37:07 -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 AAA26587; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 00:37:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZkDx-00068V-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:37:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZkDw-00068S-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:37:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZkDt-0008W5-Kf; Tue, 08 Jul 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 19ZkDM-0008Sk-VJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:36:29 -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 AAA26571 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 00:36:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZkDK-00068H-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:36:26 -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 19ZkDH-00068E-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:36:25 -0400 Received: from ([192.168.0.1] helo=azza.com) by mail.azza.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #5) id 19ZkDA-0006gZ-00; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 22:36:16 -0600 Message-ID: <3F0A4A68.70506@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: Paul Judge , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A lot of additional comments 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: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 22:36:56 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry, I should have read this before I went on my childish rant. I just couldn't take it any more. Paul Judge wrote: > > Even though it is fairly obvious, I've confirmed that this email also comes > from Marc McCarron. > > I've taken a few measures to prevent this type of interruption in the > future. One of which is that new subscriptions now require administrator > approval in addition to email confirmation. > > Hopefully, Marc will focus on setting up a mailing list to discuss the > details of his system for interested parties rather than spend his time > creating aliases and making obviously false accusations. > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 8 01:06:35 2003 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 BAA27111 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 01:06:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zkg2-000142-TD for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:06:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h68566tk004086 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 01:06:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zkg2-00013p-Qa for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:06:06 -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 BAA27105; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 01:06:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zkfz-0006GY-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:06:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zkfz-0006GU-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:06:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zkfw-00011x-TV; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:06:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZkfE-00010X-Js for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:05:16 -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 BAA27098 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 01:05:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZkfB-0006GR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:05:13 -0400 Received: from mnr1.microneil.com ([216.88.36.96]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZkfA-0006GO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:05:13 -0400 Received: by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix, from userid 93) id 5CE4229C063; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 01:04:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MicroNeil.com (mail.microneil.com [216.88.36.161]) by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D78829C05D for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 01:04:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from toshiba-user.microneil.com [63.86.179.204] by MicroNeil.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.05) id A0C19900D4; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:04:01 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.0.20030708005525.00b56bd0@mail.microneil.com> X-Sender: madscientist@mail.microneil.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 To: From: Pete McNeil Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707195908.00b68190@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Declude-Spoolname: D50c10d4.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: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:03:59 -0400 At 07:59 PM 7/7/2003 -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >At 07:23 PM 7/7/2003 -0400, Elric Pedder wrote: >I don't believe you can stop false positives -- if only because >>people will have widely varying opinions on what SPAM (to them) >>is. It is, however, very dangerous to allow false positives >>because if anything the perceived "reliability" of the Internet >>becomes compromised. >> >>I would recommend >> >>"Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all messages >>either reach the intended recipient, or are returned to the >>sender, or the sender notified." > >How would this fit within the consent model? If a RECEIVER revokes consent >for a specific sender, then messages from that SENDER cannot be delivered? Different RECEIVERS on the same system can have different policies. One RECEIVER might reject the message (revoked consent), while another accepts it (consent). When the SENDER attempts to deliver the message to both recipients one will be accepted during the SMTP conversation and the other would not be. If the policy was not clear at the time of the SMTP conversation then other mechanisms would be used to notify the SENDER that the message was rejected by one or more recipients according to the applicable policies. _M PS: I do not necessarily agree that the SENDER must be notified in ALL cases since there are forms of abuse that rely on this, however I would agree that it would be a "best practice". It should be implemented as part of any consent policy as an action to be taken when consent is denied/revoked. Legitimate bulk senders would then also have a best practice to automatically remove the RECEIVER from their list and unsubscribe them if they received such a notice. In any case, making these recommendations an indication of "best practice" would allow the specifications to indicate _should_ rather than _must_ which makes more sense for some implementations. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 8 01:35:35 2003 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 BAA27586 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 01:35:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zl87-00023n-GP for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:35:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h685Z7lO007915 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 01:35:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zl87-00023a-DX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:35:07 -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 BAA27577; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 01:35:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zl84-0006Pg-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:35:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zl83-0006Pd-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:35:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zl82-00021P-2h; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:35:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zl7k-00020l-Rx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:34:44 -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 BAA27562 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 01:34:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zl7h-0006P5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:34:41 -0400 Received: from mnr1.microneil.com ([216.88.36.96]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zl7h-0006P2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:34:41 -0400 Received: by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix, from userid 93) id 3CA7F29C05D; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 01:34:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MicroNeil.com (mail.microneil.com [216.88.36.161]) by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E22B29C01C for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 01:34:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from toshiba-user.microneil.com [63.86.179.204] by MicroNeil.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.05) id A7ABA900AC; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:33:31 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.0.20030708012503.02cf0a30@mail.microneil.com> X-Sender: madscientist@mail.microneil.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 To: From: Pete McNeil Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through In-Reply-To: <008601c344f3$5c52fc70$04555ccc@kensington> References: <16138.2979.664198.680652@world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Declude-Spoolname: D57ab0ac.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: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:33:31 -0400 At 09:50 PM 7/7/2003 -0400, Elric Pedder wrote: > > > Howsabout when it's 200+ hijacked servers banging at you full-speed > > with the same spam? That's the reality. > >Ideally the notification would be issued by the servers themselves >as a result of a 5xx response code during the SMTP transaction. >This may help the 200+ hijacked servers' administrators notice the >problem. > >It may be a costly process, but you are only returning one >notification for each message. If the policy were adaptive, then a SENDER who continues to ignore rejections after some number of notices could be seen as abusive under that policy and the rejection method could be escalated. Eventually you would expect the system upon experiencing abuse (either by design or by error) to refuse connections from the SENDER for a period of time... This might make a good "safety valve". In cases where policies are shared in a COT (Circle Of Trust), other systems might adopt this policy and effectively disconnect misbehaving systems until the abuse is ceased. A collaboration between systems with a similar policy would allow for the "count of abuse" to be measured between all systems in the COT such that any "attacker" would find the "noise floor" in the detection system quite low... That is, they would not be able to counter the disconnection mechanism by simply dispersing or pacing their "attack" since multiple systems would be employed to measure the abuse. A system like this would not be a direct element of a consent policy as it is being defined here, but the specifications for a consent policy should allow for mechanisms like this to become part of the decision model. _M _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 8 02:03:37 2003 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 CAA02475 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 02:03:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZlZF-000491-3n for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 02:03:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h68639VQ015925 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 02:03:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZlZE-00048m-Vm for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 02:03:08 -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 CAA01908; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 02:03:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZlZB-0006g7-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 02:03:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZlZA-0006g4-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 02:03:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZlZ7-00046h-UA; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 02:03:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZlYG-00042M-IK for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 02:02:08 -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 CAA00824 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 02:02:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZlYD-0006fi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 02:02:05 -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 19ZlYC-0006ff-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 02:02:04 -0400 Received: from dino ([66.120.64.130]) by magic1.org for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 22:59:53 -0700 Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Scott Nelson Subject: Re: [Asrg] Does anyone remember what happened to.... Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 07 Jul 2003 23:02:32 -0700 At 03:15 PM 7/7/03 -0500, Christopher Bird wrote: >A while back (probably 2 or 3 years) there used to be an email service >called either msgto.com or mailto.com or something like that. It worked >by the following (rather clumsy, but quite effective) method. > >It kept a list of people who I authenticated as legitimate mailers to me >in its address list. >Any mail from someone in that list was automatically authenticated >Any mail from someone not in that list was held in abeyance and an email >sent to the return address of that piece of mail. If the person at\the >other end confirmed that they did indeed send it, then the mail was >forwarded to me and placed in a quarantine box for my approval >(whitelist) or disapproval (blacklist). > >I used the service for a while and it proved very effective indeed. Of >course there are several opportunities for abuse: > >Return address spoofing - so the return/verification emails become spam >to someone else >Mail delays - if the original sender were unavailable and it was a first >time send, then the mail would sit in abeyance until the original sender >returned. > >Does anyone else remember the company/approach? Is it worth resurrecting >some of that thinking? > >Regards > I remember it - it was msgto.com. You can still see it on the wayback machine - http://web.archive.org/web/20001019043732/http://www.msgto.com/ They folded sometime in the last quarter of 2000 (I don't remember exactly when, but they had announcements on their web pages for months.) It was a challenge response system, with a web based (visual) challenge. IIRC, they added advertisements to your email, which I thought defeated the entire purpose. (Perhaps that's why they folded?) IMO, considerible less interesting than TMDA. Lots of features in one package (or so they claimed, I never did sign up) but nothing really novel. Scott Nelson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 8 03:19:39 2003 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 DAA12717 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 03:19:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zmko-0001Wn-Mb for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 03:19:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h687JAiJ005873 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 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 19Zmko-0001We-EY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 03:19:10 -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 DAA12709; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 03:19:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zmkm-0007B0-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 03:19:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zmkl-0007Ax-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 03:19:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zmkf-0001Ui-Ni; Tue, 08 Jul 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 19Zmjv-0001Tr-1u for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 03:18:15 -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 DAA12693 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 03:18:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zmjs-0007Al-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 03:18:12 -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 19Zmjs-0007Ai-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 03:18:12 -0400 Received: from dino ([66.120.64.130]) by magic1.org for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 00:16:01 -0700 Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Scott Nelson Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 08 Jul 2003 00:18:40 -0700 At 05:23 PM 7/7/03 -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >Just ran across this quote from the John Gilmore of the EFF >(http://www.politechbot.com/p-04927.html): > >----snip---- >After years of divisive discussions, a very similar pledge/oath/policy was >what EFF was able to come to agreement on: > >"Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages reach >their intended recipients." > >Perhaps none of us has yet come up with a silver bullet to solve the >problem of spam -- but it IS within our power to solve the problem of >overzealous anti-spam measures. >----snip---- > Oh cool, sound bites. Here's some from me; "We must be sure the cure is better than the disease." "Strive for 0 false positives and 0 false negatives, but remember TANSTAAFL." "A new solution only needs to be better than the current one, not perfect." "A flood of spam can drown out speech as easily as a tyrant if we don't take action against it." Seriously, too much spam can cause false positives. I've deleted non-spam when filtering by hand, and I'm sure others have too. Not losing any non-spam messages is the goal, but anything better than what we have currently is acceptable. And as other have pointed out, if it's a tradeoff between false positives and false negatives, it's up to the receiver to decide which is preferable. Parents of young children might choose fewer false negatives, while a brokerage house might choose fewer false positives, and that's as it should be. Scott Nelson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 8 04:37:42 2003 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 EAA13952 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 04:37:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZnyM-0004wM-Dy for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:37:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h688bEKO018976 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 04:37:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZnyL-0004vz-6P for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:37:13 -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 EAA13942; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 04:37:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZnyH-0007W0-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:37:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZnyH-0007Vx-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:37:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zny9-0004rj-Th; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:37:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Znxz-0004rC-W0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:36:52 -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 EAA13930 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 04:36:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Znxx-0007Vr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:36:49 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Znxw-0007Vo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:36:48 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19Znxs-0000u9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 09:36:44 +0100 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707171928.037d26a0@pop.pocketmail.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" 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: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 09:36:44 +0100 > Just ran across this quote from the John Gilmore of the EFF > (http://www.politechbot.com/p-04927.html): > > > ----snip---- > After years of divisive discussions, a very similar pledge/oath/policy > was > what EFF was able to come to agreement on: > > "Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages > reach > their intended recipients." > > Perhaps none of us has yet come up with a silver bullet to solve the > problem of spam -- but it IS within our power to solve the problem of > overzealous anti-spam measures. > ----snip---- Unless my "anti-spam" system is perfect, there must be no silent false-positives for this to be true. Either a sender whose message is not delivered because of the action of some "anti-spam" system must be able to know this. And be able to find out what they can do about it. (This is a very strong argument for "spam" rejection to happen during the SMTP - or whatever - transaction; we don't want to be sending DSN or challenges to forged senders.) Or, the "receiver" must be be informed that the message hasn't been delivered, and be able to do something about it (but this imposes a cost on the receiver). -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 8 04:58:33 2003 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 EAA14696 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 04:58:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZoIY-0005uU-Bc for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:58:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h688w6Xx022714 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 04:58:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZoIY-0005uH-8a for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:58:06 -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 EAA14674; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 04:58:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZoIV-0007hF-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:58:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZoIU-0007hC-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:58:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZoIT-0005s2-V0; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:58:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZoHj-0005pV-Qd for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:57:15 -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 EAA14664 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 04:57:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZoHg-0007gw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:57:12 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZoHg-0007gt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:57:12 -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 <20030708085907.LWNR28645.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 04:59:07 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0A876D.5050704@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: Jon Kyme CC: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through 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: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:57:17 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Let me tell you what I do with SPAM. I don't think this is all the problematic. In either C/R mode or Filter mode (I use Cyrus with Sieve to support this) I move messages that I expect into my Inbox. The first line of defense in my system is the C/R system. When I join a list or want email from someone I setup the C/R system to bypass it's work by adding the appropriate email addresses (and where I expect to see them - To, CC, etc). If the address is in the list, no C/R is required. If the address isn't in any list, a challenge is issued. If the response is given, it moves into the inbox. If no response is given within a day the message is put in to the Junk folder. If a response is given it is moved into the inbox. When I log in to my account the spam filters run (I use the Mozilla email reader that supports Bayesan filtering). When the filter catches it goes into the Junk folder. Everything else stays in the Inbox. What has this done: I normally reject 99% or better of spam; I get 4-5 in my inbox. I spend a few minutes to figure out what happened - how it got through - and mostly adjust my filters. Yes, occassionally I do find valid messages in the Junk folder, and for those I also train the filter to not pick them up. Now it isn't a perfect system - it won't catch all spam and mark it as such. It will tag certain valid messages as spam (for instance the filters originally put all messages from ASRG that had SPAM in the hearder into the Junk folder! lol). But with a little work it does get rid of the problem, as far as I am concerned. Chuck Wegrzyn Jon Kyme wrote: >>Just ran across this quote from the John Gilmore of the EFF >>(http://www.politechbot.com/p-04927.html): >> >> >>----snip---- >>After years of divisive discussions, a very similar pledge/oath/policy >>was >>what EFF was able to come to agreement on: >> >>"Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages >>reach >>their intended recipients." >> >>Perhaps none of us has yet come up with a silver bullet to solve the >>problem of spam -- but it IS within our power to solve the problem of >>overzealous anti-spam measures. >>----snip---- >> >> > >Unless my "anti-spam" system is perfect, there must be no silent >false-positives for this to be true. Either a sender whose message is not >delivered because of the action of some "anti-spam" system must be able to >know this. And be able to find out what they can do about it. >(This is a very strong argument for "spam" rejection to happen during the >SMTP - or whatever - transaction; we don't want to be sending DSN or >challenges to forged senders.) >Or, the "receiver" must be be informed that the message hasn't been >delivered, and be able to do something about it (but this imposes a cost on >the receiver). > > > > > > >-- > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jul 8 06:15:34 2003 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 GAA16619 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 06:15:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZpV6-0001BN-6q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:15:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h68AF8hp004543 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 06:15:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZpV6-0001BC-3s for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:15:08 -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 GAA16600; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 06:15:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZpV2-0000RC-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:15:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZpV1-0000R9-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:15:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZpUz-00019B-FF; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:15:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZpU8-00018d-S7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:14:08 -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 GAA16592 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 06:14:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZpU5-0000Qy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:14:05 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZpU4-0000Qg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:14:04 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:13:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 06:00:31 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Barry Shein'" , "'Dave Crocker'" Cc: Paul Judge , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. - Spam Characterization - Possible Measurements (wa s : RE: 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: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 06:00:25 -0400 > -----Original Message----- > From: Barry Shein [mailto:bzs@world.std.com] > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 7:12 PM > To: Dave Crocker > Cc: Paul Judge; 'asrg@ietf.org' > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. - Spam Characterization - Possible > Measurements (wa s : RE: Two ways to look at spam) > > > > Well, there's one characterization from measurements > mentioned which spammers can't adapt to and that's their > location (in)stability in IP space. > > This relates to the idea that the only reason spammers can > operate effectively is because they exploit thousands of > hijacked computers which gives them location mobility (not > geographic but in ip space.) > > If this can be shown to be true via measurement it leads to > the conclusion that perhaps the problem with spam is not what > leads to this idea of a "consent" framework as originally > proposed in this charter, but, instead, shows spam is almost > entirely a security problem. The consent framework does not contradict that spam is a security problem. I believe that the unauthorized use of resources (for sending messages as well as those of the recipients) are grounds for that statement. Additionally, the potential disruption in availability is another reason for such a view. While one path is to focus on the 'security' of the hijacked computers, I think that we have learned over the years that they will continue to find new means of injecting their messages into the system (relays, dialups, hijacked machines, proxies, webforms, free mail services, etc.). Therefore, it seems that while some focus on each of these makes sense, overall we should maintain the broader view of the problem. For example, you mentioned that spammers exhibit an instability in the IP space. Is there a way to measure this relative to senders of wanted messages? Can this relationship be used to detect new sources of unwanted messages or to determine stable sources of wanted messages? This is useful in the prevention of unwanted messages and the preservation of wanted messages. Such a heuristic could be part of reputation system. > > Spammers can't adapt their way out of this observation > because that would mean they'd have to become location > immobile which means we could just block them and that'd be > the end of 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 exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 8 06:33:33 2003 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 GAA17043 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 06:33:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZpmV-0001tO-IH for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:33:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h68AX7gt007268 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 06:33:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZpmV-0001t9-Ai for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:33:07 -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 GAA17031; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 06:33:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZpmR-0000Xg-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:33:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZpmQ-0000Xd-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:33:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZpmP-0001q9-3X; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:33:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZpmB-0001pp-E8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:32:47 -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 GAA17028 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 06:32:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zpm7-0000XZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:32:43 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zpm6-0000XV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:32:43 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19Zpm8-0003rs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:32:44 +0100 In-Reply-To: <3F0A876D.5050704@garbagedump.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" 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: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:32:44 +0100 > > Now it isn't a perfect system - it won't catch all spam and mark it as > such. It will tag certain valid messages as spam (for instance the > filters originally put all messages from ASRG that had SPAM in the > hearder into the Junk folder! lol). But with a little work it does get > rid of the problem, as far as I am concerned. > I'm sure it does. This is a system under the total control of a knowlegeable "receiver". The problem is to deliver solutions (or frameworks for solutions) that will work for any receiver, while giving acceptable "reliability". -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 8 06:34:27 2003 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 GAA17076 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 06:34:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZpnO-000203-2t for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:34:02 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h68AY2C5007681 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 06:34:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZpnN-0001zo-Ui for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:34:01 -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 GAA17063; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 06:33:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZpnK-0000YF-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:33:58 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZpnJ-0000YA-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:33:57 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZpnM-0001wp-Lm; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:34:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZpmY-0001tR-Ib for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:33:10 -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 GAA17036 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 06:33:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZpmU-0000Xl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:33:06 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZpmT-0000XU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:33:05 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:32:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 06:19:25 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'Barry Shein'" , "'Dave Crocker'" Cc: Paul Judge , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. - Spam Characterization - Possible Measurements (wa s : RE: 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: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 06:19:23 -0400 > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 8:33 PM > To: Barry Shein; Dave Crocker > Cc: Paul Judge; 'asrg@ietf.org' > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. - Spam Characterization - Possible > Measurements (wa s : RE: Two ways to look at spam) > > > At 07:12 PM 7/7/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: > > > >Well, there's one characterization from measurements mentioned which > >spammers can't adapt to and that's their location > (in)stability in IP > >space. > > > >This relates to the idea that the only reason spammers can operate > >effectively is because they exploit thousands of hijacked computers > >which gives them location mobility (not geographic but in ip space.) > > > >If this can be shown to be true via measurement it leads to the > >conclusion that perhaps the problem with spam is not what > leads to this > >idea of a "consent" framework as originally proposed in this > charter, > >but, instead, shows spam is almost entirely a security problem. > > > >Spammers can't adapt their way out of this observation because that > >would mean they'd have to become location immobile which > means we could > >just block them and that'd be the end of spam. > > Paul, > > Perhaps we can start seeing some of the data based on these > characteristics? > > Yakov I've commented on Barry's points in a separate message so I'll just address your question here. There were four categories of measurements: sending, source, message, and spam attack characteristics. I'm working with some colleagues at Georgia Tech on some analysis around the first three. It will probably be another month before the data is in a meaningful representation. If others want to also pursue this path, that is great. Just contact me off-list and we can discuss. The fourth category is spam attack characteristics. This seems to be where this particular suggestion from Barry focuses. We can develop a methodology for performing this analysis. We then need volunteers for performing the data collection. This most likely requires not just a collection of spam, but some honeypot domains, relays, or proxies. Volunteers? Barry, any specific thoughts towards measuring the IP instability of senders? There have been some ideas from persons discussing reputation systems about the difference between the real source of the message and the sender of the message. One difficulty is determining the real source and tracking this across different messages sent via different means. Then, how do you account for the legitimate messages that may originate from machines or networks that have been compromised by spammers? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 8 07:27:44 2003 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 HAA17874 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 07:27:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zqcs-00041W-U0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:27:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h68BRELB015460 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 07:27:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zqcs-00041H-Qw for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:27:14 -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 HAA17864; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 07:27:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zqcs-0000kp-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:27:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zqcr-0000km-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:27:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zqcf-0003zC-S5; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:27:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zqc3-0003yR-Lw for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:26:23 -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 HAA17853 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 07:26:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zqc3-0000kY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:26:23 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zqc2-0000kJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:26:22 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:25:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 07:12:43 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 0. General - Group Direction 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: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 07:12:38 -0400 I think that you hit on it with the understand, propose, and evaluate steps. The use of three verbs was quite intentional. Also, if you look at the ASRG Work Items list (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg-work-items.txt), you will notice that the work items fall under these same three phases. The understanding phase includes: 1. inventory of problems work (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/draft-asrg-inventory-of-problems.txt) 2. the analysis and characterization work The proposal phase includes: Foundation: 3. requirements document (https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05084.htm l) 4. the taxonomy (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/draft-asrg-taxonomy-anti-spam-systems.txt) 5. identification of standardization requirements (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt) x. consent framework document (http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-consent-framework.html) Proposals: 6. proposals of new solutions (lots of these; they just need to be revisited in relationship with the req's, the evaluation model, and the consent framework) We probably need to create a template for proposals. 7. best practices documents. The evaluation phase includes: 8.a. creating an evaluation model (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt) 8.c. evaluation of the solutions (it seems to be more efficient to require this as part of proposals) If anyone has opinions about items that should be added to or removed from this list, I would love to hear them. After we receive some feedback here, I will publish a new list of work items. > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 12:08 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Group Direction > > > Our group was intended to do the following (from > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/minutes/asrg.htm): > > "ASRG was formed to UNDERSTAND the problem and collectively > PROPOSE and > EVALUATE solutions to allow "consent based communication." > > However, while we had many discussions on UNDERSTANDING the > spam problem, > we have not produced a document or a summary of our results > on that issue. > But it seems that we are currently on our way towards PROPOSING AND > EVALUATING solutions by first developing the following tools: > 1. Consent framework. 2. Requirements document. 3. Technical > Considerations document. > > Using these tools we can then look back at the various > proposals and start > evaluating them. As for UNDERSTANDING the problem can we hope > to come up > with a document summarizing the problem or is since there are so many > divergent views, that will not happen? > > In general, is there a specific roadmap or direction for the > group? Perhaps > we are seeking to accomplish the following goals: > 1. Write up a document summarizing the problem. > 2. Write up documents to be used for evaluating proposals. > 3. Start evaluating solutions based on the first two steps. > 4. Select areas where standards are needed and either develop > them or pass > on the standardization suggestions to the IETF. > > 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 Tue Jul 8 07:45:34 2003 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 HAA18154 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 07:45:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zqu9-0004rY-Ut for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:45:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h68Bj5Ux018693 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 07:45:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zqu9-0004rQ-Pn for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:45:05 -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 HAA18150; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 07:45:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zqu8-0000rD-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:45:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zqu8-0000rA-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:45:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zqu5-0004oQ-GL; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:45:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZqtW-0004mL-BB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:44:26 -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 HAA18144 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 07:44:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZqtV-0000r7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:44:25 -0400 Received: from bay2-f144.bay2.hotmail.com ([65.54.247.144] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZqtU-0000qs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:44:25 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 04:38:35 -0700 Received: from 195.17.73.26 by by2fd.bay2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:38:35 GMT X-Originating-IP: [195.17.73.26] X-Originating-Email: [kmn_asgr@hotmail.com] From: "Kurt Magnusson" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jul 2003 11:38:35.0636 (UTC) FILETIME=[777EBB40:01C34545] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 08 Jul 2003 09:38:35 -0200 Elric Pedder wrote: >>Behalf Of Yakov Shafranovich >>Just ran across this quote from the John Gilmore of the EFF >>(http://www.politechbot.com/p-04927.html): >>----snip---- >>"Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam >>messages reach >>their intended recipients." >> >>Perhaps none of us has yet come up with a silver bullet to solve the >>problem of spam -- but it IS within our power to solve the problem of >>overzealous anti-spam measures. >>----snip---- > >I don't believe you can stop false positives -- if only because >people will have widely varying opinions on what SPAM (to them) >is. It is, however, very dangerous to allow false positives >because if anything the perceived "reliability" of the Internet >becomes compromised. > >I would recommend > >"Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all messages >either reach the intended recipient, or are returned to the >sender, or the sender notified." Elric I do agree with you regarding the last, we should return undeliverables, but I do not agree that we need to live with false positives. Some months back I refered to a method I called the Earnest method, because it uses the URL's and phone nos the spammers want us to use. I've run it with a proof of concept solution since early april and have, since I cleaned out some headers addresses I collected when I consentrated on sender ID, in mid-may not have had any false positives. It do occational allow new domains, but as long I am sure non-spams get through and I can handle the new ones simply, it isn't a problem. But if you to guess what is spam, based on patterns in a letter the issue is important, but if we can eliminate that guess, working with what the spammers want us do, contact them, then we lessen the risks of filtering away Aunti Agathas messages. If people do send a URL with a spammer domain, pity, or we learn them to write them, so they passthrough. I have no problem with getting a non-active URL from my dear aunt, because I know why I need to copy and paste it. But spam with non- active URL's will not generate the requred traffic to the advertiser. It is to complicated. 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 Tue Jul 8 07:53:32 2003 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 HAA18264 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 07:53:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zr1r-0005Ft-Tc for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:53:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h68Br3nn020202 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 07:53:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zr1r-0005Fl-PZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:53:03 -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 HAA18251; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 07:53:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zr1q-0000t9-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:53:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zr1q-0000t6-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:53:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zr1p-0005Ch-N9; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:53:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zr12-00057k-El for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:52:12 -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 HAA18245 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 07:52:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zr11-0000sq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:52:11 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zr10-0000sm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:52:10 -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 <20030708115400.NAAV28645.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 07:54:00 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0AB06A.2080207@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: Kurt Magnusson CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through 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: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:52:10 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I keep seeing the statement being made that spam should be returned to the sender. I might suggest something slightly different: why not have it delivered and marked as SPAM in the Subject line? In this way at least I can check to see if it really is spam? I'm afraid that if it is returned and we have false positives some mail might be returned that I do want to see. Chuck Wegrzyn Kurt Magnusson wrote: > Elric Pedder wrote: > >>> Behalf Of Yakov Shafranovich >>> Just ran across this quote from the John Gilmore of the EFF >>> (http://www.politechbot.com/p-04927.html): >>> ----snip---- >>> "Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam >>> messages reach >>> their intended recipients." >>> >>> Perhaps none of us has yet come up with a silver bullet to solve the >>> problem of spam -- but it IS within our power to solve the problem of >>> overzealous anti-spam measures. >>> ----snip---- >> >> >> I don't believe you can stop false positives -- if only because >> people will have widely varying opinions on what SPAM (to them) >> is. It is, however, very dangerous to allow false positives >> because if anything the perceived "reliability" of the Internet >> becomes compromised. >> >> I would recommend >> >> "Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all messages >> either reach the intended recipient, or are returned to the >> sender, or the sender notified." > > > Elric > > I do agree with you regarding the last, we should return undeliverables, > but I do not agree that we need to live with false positives. Some months > back I refered to a method I called the Earnest method, because it > uses the > URL's and phone nos the spammers want us to use. I've run it with a proof > of concept solution since early april and have, since I cleaned out > some headers > addresses I collected when I consentrated on sender ID, in mid-may not > have > had any false positives. It do occational allow new domains, but as > long I am > sure non-spams get through and I can handle the new ones simply, it isn't > a problem. > > But if you to guess what is spam, based on patterns in a letter the issue > is important, but if we can eliminate that guess, working with what the > spammers want us do, contact them, then we lessen the risks of filtering > away Aunti Agathas messages. If people do send a URL with a spammer > domain, pity, or we learn them to write them, so they passthrough. I > have no problem with getting a non-active URL from my dear aunt, > because I know why I need to copy and paste it. But spam with non- > active URL's will not generate the requred traffic to the advertiser. It > is to complicated. > > 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 > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 8 09:49:44 2003 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 JAA21516 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:49:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZsqK-00036h-7N for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 09:49:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h68DnGXt011938 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:49:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZsqK-00036T-4H for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 09:49:16 -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 JAA21487; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:49:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZsqI-0001gG-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 09:49:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZsqH-0001gD-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 09:49:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zsq5-000317-4X; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 09:49:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZspQ-0002wa-B4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 09:48:20 -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 JAA21465 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:48:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZspO-0001fa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 09:48:18 -0400 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZspN-0001fX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 09:48:17 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h68Dlm2Q013836; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 06:47:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 06:47:48 -0700 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D22EE@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'C. Wegrzyn'" , Kurt Magnusson Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through 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, 8 Jul 2003 06:47:47 -0700 How can you return mail to the "sender" when you don't know who that is? I get tens of false bounces of mails I never sent every day. Most of the time it is a virus that has hijacked my address, sometimes it is spam. > -----Original Message----- > From: C. Wegrzyn [mailto:wegrzyn@garbagedump.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 7:52 AM > To: Kurt Magnusson > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through > > > I keep seeing the statement being made that spam should be > returned to > the sender. I might suggest something slightly different: why > not have > it delivered and marked as SPAM in the Subject line? In this way at > least I can check to see if it really is spam? I'm afraid > that if it is > returned and we have false positives some mail might be > returned that I > do want to see. > > Chuck Wegrzyn > > > Kurt Magnusson wrote: > > > Elric Pedder wrote: > > > >>> Behalf Of Yakov Shafranovich > >>> Just ran across this quote from the John Gilmore of the EFF > >>> (http://www.politechbot.com/p-04927.html): > >>> ----snip---- > >>> "Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam > >>> messages reach > >>> their intended recipients." > >>> > >>> Perhaps none of us has yet come up with a silver bullet > to solve the > >>> problem of spam -- but it IS within our power to solve > the problem of > >>> overzealous anti-spam measures. > >>> ----snip---- > >> > >> > >> I don't believe you can stop false positives -- if only because > >> people will have widely varying opinions on what SPAM (to them) > >> is. It is, however, very dangerous to allow false positives > >> because if anything the perceived "reliability" of the Internet > >> becomes compromised. > >> > >> I would recommend > >> > >> "Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all messages > >> either reach the intended recipient, or are returned to the > >> sender, or the sender notified." > > > > > > Elric > > > > I do agree with you regarding the last, we should return > undeliverables, > > but I do not agree that we need to live with false > positives. Some months > > back I refered to a method I called the Earnest method, because it > > uses the > > URL's and phone nos the spammers want us to use. I've run > it with a proof > > of concept solution since early april and have, since I cleaned out > > some headers > > addresses I collected when I consentrated on sender ID, in > mid-may not > > have > > had any false positives. It do occational allow new domains, but as > > long I am > > sure non-spams get through and I can handle the new ones > simply, it isn't > > a problem. > > > > But if you to guess what is spam, based on patterns in a > letter the issue > > is important, but if we can eliminate that guess, working > with what the > > spammers want us do, contact them, then we lessen the risks > of filtering > > away Aunti Agathas messages. If people do send a URL with a spammer > > domain, pity, or we learn them to write them, so they passthrough. I > > have no problem with getting a non-active URL from my dear aunt, > > because I know why I need to copy and paste it. But spam with non- > > active URL's will not generate the requred traffic to the > advertiser. It > > is to complicated. > > > > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 8 10:03:32 2003 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 KAA22184 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 10:03:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zt3h-000441-6J for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 10:03:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h68E35xM015617 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 10:03:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zt3h-00043o-3P for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 10:03:05 -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 KAA22145; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 10:03:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zt3e-0001qF-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 10:03:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zt3e-0001qC-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 10:03:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zt3d-00041w-A0; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 10:03:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zt36-00041N-5G for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 10:02:28 -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 KAA22135 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 10:02:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zt33-0001pw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 10:02:25 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zt33-0001pL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 10:02:25 -0400 Received: from cb (12-239-236-171.client.attbi.com[12.239.236.171](untrusted sender)) by attbi.com (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <2003070814015301400654cpe>; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:01:53 +0000 From: "Christopher Bird" To: Cc: 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, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Spam, UCE, Shifting trends Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 8 Jul 2003 09:01:52 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit One distinction that I haven't seen discussed much is the single recipient, personalized subject line variety of UCE or Spam. We talk about the mass nature of spam, but most of the spam that I get today is addressed just to me - in other words, the spammers are sending out millions of individual emails rather than a smaller number with multiple recipients (unless they are using BCC). The second trend that I am seeing is that my own name appears somewhere in the sender field, the reply to field or the subject field. So if I reply to the spam to notify the sender, I end up sending myself more spam. Most annoying. We definitely have so many moving targets that we need to take a kind of safety engineering approach. Design things that work first. Then look for where the holes are if the equipment fails in some unexpected ways (of course then they aren't unexpected!), then look for where the holes are with a mindset of an exploiter. We must make the assumption that those whose livelihoods we are attempting to stamp out will resist. To use a somewhat hackneyed quote from Machiavelli... "There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new." -Machiavelli, The Prince, 1513 Chris _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 8 11:01:09 2003 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 LAA25400 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:01:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZtxS-0006yi-Uk for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:00:43 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h68F0gi7026825 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:00:42 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZtxS-0006ya-OU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:00:42 -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 LAA25384; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:00:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZtxQ-0002Lv-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:00:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZtxP-0002Ls-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:00:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ztwo-0006w9-7I; Tue, 08 Jul 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 19ZtwR-0006vP-Vk for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 10:59:39 -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 KAA25351 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 10:59:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZtwP-0002LP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 10:59:37 -0400 Received: from bill.lut.ac.uk ([158.125.1.193]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZtwN-0002LK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 10:59:35 -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 19ZtwF-0008JG-6E for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:59:27 +0100 Received: from [158.125.1.123] (helo=bod.lut.ac.uk) by studentpop1.lboro.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 19ZtwF-0000Rh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:59:27 +0100 Received: from apache by bod.lut.ac.uk with local (Exim 4.12) id 19ZtwF-0007fk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:59:27 +0100 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through Message-ID: <1057676367.3f0adc4f30a4f@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> From: Andrew Akehurst References: <20030707222358.21E8616F10@jmason.org> In-Reply-To: <20030707222358.21E8616F10@jmason.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: -19.8 (-------------------) X-Scanner: exiscan for exim4 (http://duncanthrax.net/exiscan/) *19ZtwF-0008JG-6E*4ZHzPncqMyc* X-Lboro-Filtered: bill.lut.ac.uk, Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:59:27 +0100 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: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:59:27 +0100 (BST) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > "Any spam fighting system must be designed so as to allow the > > desires of the recipients to be implemented. No spam fighting system > > should be designed so as to throw away any non-spam email as part of > > its measures, unless the recipient of that email specifically > > instructs the system to do so." Perhaps the EFF's philosophy has something to do with the ideal of e-mail as freedom of speech. In this case I'd suggest the same common-sense philosophy as for regular speech. You (or your company) have the right to say whatever you like. I have the right to ignore you, should I choose to do so. From the point of view of the people wanting me to hear them, well that's tough. If I don't want to hear them, they have no right to force me to do so. We hear a lot of talk about rights these days and very little about the responsibilities that go hand in hand with rights. You may well feel you have a right to send e-mail to me but if you use that right irresponsibly, then I have the right to ignore you in future. From a common-sense point of view, if I stick my fingers in my ears when I see a particular (unwanted) person approach my desk, I might well miss some useful or even important information - maybe a colleague asking if I'd like a cup of coffee, for example, or in the extreme case somebody telling me there's a fire and that I need to leave the building. It's my choice to block my ears and any reasonable person could understand that they might miss out on something if they do the same. ... 8< ... >> I don't find that acceptable. I would rather enforce consent than >> embrace philosophical ideals. Any anti-spam system must be designed >> to enforce consent, and not ideals. > Agreed. This is a philosophical ideal; the real world does not > operate in a boolean, white-and-black mode; there are always grey areas > and compromises. Indeed. There has to be a recognition that everyone in the delivery chain of e- mail has rights and responsibilities. Whatever solution is devised will inevitably involve compromise. This doesn't mean rights aren't important, but that simply that a balance must be struck. Andrew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 8 11:32:52 2003 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 LAA26975 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:32:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZuS7-0000Cv-R3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:32:24 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h68FWNBu000792 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:32:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZuS7-0000Ch-O2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:32:23 -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 LAA26922; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:32:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZuS6-0002gM-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:32:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZuS6-0002gJ-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:32:22 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZuRl-000097-Vk; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:32:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZuQw-0008Th-2c for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:31:10 -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 LAA26810 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:31:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZuQv-0002f2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:31:09 -0400 Received: from mnr1.microneil.com ([216.88.36.96]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZuQu-0002eO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:31:08 -0400 Received: by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix, from userid 93) id 7849729C06A; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:30:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MicroNeil.com (mail.microneil.com [216.88.36.161]) by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42CB929C067 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:30:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MNR01 [216.88.36.10] by MicroNeil.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.05) id A3601B3008E; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:29:36 -0400 From: "Madscientist" To: "'ASRG'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through Message-ID: <006101c34565$be01ac60$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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-Declude-Spoolname: De36008e.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: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:29:33 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >-----Original Message----- >From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On >Behalf Of Jon Kyme >Unless my "anti-spam" system is perfect, there must be no >silent false-positives for this to be true. Either a sender >whose message is not delivered because of the action of some >"anti-spam" system must be able to know this. And be able to >find out what they can do about it. (This is a very strong >argument for "spam" rejection to happen during the SMTP - or >whatever - transaction; we don't want to be sending DSN or >challenges to forged senders.) Or, the "receiver" must be be >informed that the message hasn't been delivered, and be able >to do something about it (but this imposes a cost on the receiver). In general I agree with you, but I will play devil's advocate here. Notifying the receiver that a message was not delivered is analogous to moving messages to a "spam-review" folder. Many bulk mailers have argued that this amounts in practice to deleting and/or blocking their messages because the receiver never reviews this folder - and by analogy might simply ignore any notifications (presumably due to the cost). Since the "human component" will tend to be wildy inconsistent from a system-wide perspective, we must assume that some amount of "silent loss" will always occurr in any system we devise... for example, even if the message is passed through to the end user without any modification or redirection, the end user might simply delete it out of hand and nobody can prevent that. Give that user sufficient technology and they will likely use that technology to delete these messages automatically. It could be argued that this action is an exercise of that user's consent and so that dynamic is part of what we must consider in the design of a consent based system. --- I take off my devil's hat --- It is apparent to me that we can develop a system that forces that vast majority of reject cases to provide some appropriate notification to the sender, and even the receiver if they wish. This rejection notification starts on the scale of an unsubscribe request, escallates to delivery failure notifications, then to rejections of the message during the DATA sequence in SMTP, then to rejections of the message at the envelope stage in SMTP, and finally to rejection of the network connection. In all of these cases the sender would know that consent is not granted. If we make the design of the system such that these cases are the "most economical" (most automatic?) for the receiver then the vast majority of cases will provide sender notification. An side benefit of this interaction is that one can percieve a failure to heed this notification can be considered abuse and therefore lead to more aggressive countermeasures - such as blocking sender IPs and Networks at gateway routers - thus denying the sender's ability to compromize the network. _M _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 8 11:50:37 2003 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 LAA27925 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:50:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZujK-0001RE-9Q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:50:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h68FoAkB005521 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:50:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZujK-0001Qy-69 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:50:10 -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 LAA27891; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:50:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZujJ-0002wI-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:50:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZujI-0002wF-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:50:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZujB-0001Or-6H; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:50:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZuiX-0001Nm-5s for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:49:21 -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 LAA27795 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:49:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZuiW-0002v7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:49:20 -0400 Received: from mnr1.microneil.com ([216.88.36.96]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZuiV-0002uW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:49:19 -0400 Received: by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix, from userid 93) id 193EF29C068; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:48:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MicroNeil.com (mail.microneil.com [216.88.36.161]) by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC96229C067 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:48:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MNR01 [216.88.36.10] by MicroNeil.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.05) id A7C13B300DA; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:48:17 -0400 From: "Pete McNeil" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through Message-ID: <006b01c34568$594ab750$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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-Declude-Spoolname: De7c10da.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: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:48:16 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >-----Original Message----- >From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On >Behalf Of Kurt Magnusson >I do agree with you regarding the last, we should return >undeliverables, but I do not agree that we need to live with >false positives. Some months back I refered to a method I >called the Earnest method, because it uses the URL's and phone >nos the spammers want us to use. I've run it with a proof of >concept solution since early april and have, since I cleaned out some >headers >addresses I collected when I consentrated on sender ID, in >mid-may not have had any false positives. It do occational >allow new domains, but as long I >am >sure non-spams get through and I can handle the new ones >simply, it isn't a problem. > >But if you to guess what is spam, based on patterns in a >letter the issue is important, but if we can eliminate that >guess, working with what the spammers want us do, contact >them, then we lessen the risks of filtering away Aunti Agathas >messages. If people do send a URL with a spammer domain, pity, I have a great deal of data on this. It is not fool proof. The Message Sniffer rule base is populated primarily with rules that follow this paradigm... however these rules do occasionally cause false positives in three general cases from rarest to most common: 1. The spammer blatantly uses legitimate contact info to obfuscate their message, or so obfuscates their original contact info that any matching rule must be imprecise enough to occasionally match legitimate data or sources. 2. The spammer is using a "gray" hosting service or services such that identifying their message based on their contact information also forces the identification of legitimate messages through the same services. 3. The end users disagree on what is spam. _M _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 8 11:56:38 2003 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 LAA28287 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:56:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zup3-0001kO-2c for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:56:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h68Fu5i5006712 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:56:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zup2-0001kB-Uj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 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 LAA28249; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:56:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zup1-00031p-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:56:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zup1-00031m-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:56:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zuoy-0001gu-HJ; Tue, 08 Jul 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 19ZuoS-0001fr-4Q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:55:28 -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 LAA28211 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:55:24 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZuoQ-000311-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:55:26 -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 19ZuoP-00030y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:55:25 -0400 Received: (cpmta 7217 invoked from network); 8 Jul 2003 08:55:24 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.66) with SMTP; 8 Jul 2003 08:55:24 -0700 X-Sent: 8 Jul 2003 15:55:24 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Tue, 8 Jul 2003 10:55:07 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:24:17 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Replacing SMTP 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, 08 Jul 2003 11:24:17 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > This is a quote taken from section 4.1 of (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt), emphasis added: > -----snip---- "A key construct to examination of adoption and benefit is "core-vs-edge". Generally, adoption at the edge of a system is easier and quicker than adoption in the core. If a mechanism affects the core (infrastructure) then it usually must be adopted by most or all of the infrastructure before it provides meaningful utility. IN SOMETHING THE SCALE OF THE INTERNET, IT CAN TAKE DECADES TO REACH THAT LEVEL OF ADOPTION, IF IT EVER DOES. > Remember that the Internet comprises a massive number of independent administrations, each with their own politics and funding. What is important and feasible to one might be neither to another. If the latter administration is in the handling path for a message, then it will not have implemented the necessary control mechanism. Worse, it well might not be possible to change this. FOR EXAMPLE A PROPOSAL THAT REQUIRES A BRAND NEW MAIL SERVICE IS NOT LIKELY TO GAIN MUCH TRACTION. > By contrast, some "edge" mechanisms provide utility to the first one, two or three adopters who interact with each other. No one else is needed for the adopters to gain some benefit. Each additional adopter makes the total system incrementally more useful. For example a filter can be useful to the first recipient to adopt it. A consent mechanism can be useful to the first two or three adopters, depending upon the design of the mechanism." -----snip---- Thanks for posting that. That last paragraph, in particular, is a very good discussion about why my Permissions List idea is likely to be so successful and effective. First, it's incrementally deployable. It interacts with the person who first uses it, so there is an immediate positive feedback that rewards the installation, even if NOBODY else installs it. Second, my approach doesn't _require_ ANYBODY else to adopt it for it to be useful. The initial adopters will see the *great* majority of spam intercepted because of its use of HTML-burdening. Third, as my approach becomes more widespread, and spammers realize that using HTML, attachments, and base64 encoding in their messages is the kiss of death to their messages ever being read, they'll revert to plain ASCII text which will all by itself cut spam bulk by probably about 70%. In the process of reverting to plain ASCII text, the GREAT majority of the tricks they use to obscure the contents of their spam and confuse/defeat content scanners will be denied to them. This ensures that stuff like SpamAssassin should be able to very effectively clean up most of what's left. Fourth, my approach can be implemented at end-user sites, requiring *NO* changes at ISPs or network infrastructure AT ALL. As the usefulness becomes more widespread, I believe that the permissions list filtering will probably move so that it occurs as soon as the spam hits the destination domain... either the ISP or domain provider. This will reduce the storage/bandwidth costs at the destination ISP, plus will offer the ISP a competitive advantage over ISPs that don't offer the service. Customers not wanting spam (and we've seen with the new nationwide do-not-call list how consumers are rushing to take advantage of features like this) will obviously prefer ISPs which help control the flood of spam. (And unlike other techniques, mine has the advantage of not being totally invisible... the user is more aware of how much spam is being intercepted, which means that they appreciate the service much more). One thing that I've done as a result of the discussions here is that I've started implementing some of the stuff we've talked about into my personal E-mail processing system. In particular, it struck me as useful to not just route the spam to a "spam" dead-letter-mailbox but also to produce a summary list of what's been routed there, and why. Currently this list is just being kept as a file on disk, although I'll probably add the features to periodically E-mail it to me, as well as providing an interactive tool of some kind to facilitate me dealing with the information in it... (examine. discard, deliver anyway, update rules, etc etc) Note that my present incoming mail filter does not yet implement the Permissions List feature (which accounts for some of the stuff I'm seeing in my spam routing reports...) but FWIW here's some of the early results, just as an example: I've inserted [comments] here to explain some of the results and reasons. [quote] ----- \\NTS1\HOME\SPAM\INETMAIL\INBOX\MSG57.msg To: terabites.com%gep2@terabites.com From: WaterTower Theatre Subject: Final weekend for "the best dramatic production of the season" Reason: ccprod.roving.com [ccprod.roving.com is a disreputable domain so any post referring to them gets filtered. In this case, watertowertheare.org is a 'good' outfit so I'll put them in my permissions list to allow them to send to me regardless.] ----- \\NTS1\HOME\SPAM\INETMAIL\INBOX\MSG115.msg To: terabites.com%gep2@terabites.com From: "Otis Fournier" Subject: iacitified966592@paris.com wlxp hftu Reason: 1 [reason '1' is that the E-mail contains heavily-obscured URLs] ----- \\NTS1\HOME\SPAM\INETMAIL\INBOX\MSG116.msg To: terabites.com%gep2@terabites.com From: suespammers-request@spamcon.org Subject: suespammers digest, Vol 1 #810 - 2 msgs Reason: ?xml:namespace prefix =3D o ns =3D=20 "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" / [this message contained HTML codes my filter didn't like] ----- \\NTS1\HOME\SPAM\INETMAIL\INBOX\msg117.msg To: terabites.com%gep2@terabites.com From: "Willis Piper" Subject: Hi oqedz33weg7 Reason: www.herbalpillsonline.biz, kxb3p662yy61yl1 [disreputable domain reference, and use of garbage HTML tags to obscure message content] ----- \\NTS1\HOME\SPAM\INETMAIL\INBOX\MSG124.msg To: terabites.com%gep2@terabites.com From: HomeOfTheBrave@yahoogroups.com Subject: [HomeOfTheBrave] Digest Number 873 Reason: adserver.trb.com [disreputable domain reference] ----- \\NTS1\HOME\SPAM\INETMAIL\INBOX\MSG115.msg To: terabites.com%gep2@terabites.com From: "Otis Fournier" Subject: iacitified966592@paris.com wlxp hftu Reason: 1 [heavily obscured URL] ----- \\NTS1\HOME\SPAM\INETMAIL\INBOX\MSG116.msg To: terabites.com%gep2@terabites.com From: suespammers-request@spamcon.org Subject: suespammers digest, Vol 1 #810 - 2 msgs Reason: ?xml:namespace prefix =3D o ns =3D=20 "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" / [undesirable HTML tags] ----- \\NTS1\HOME\SPAM\INETMAIL\INBOX\MSG11.msg To: terabites.com%gep2@terabites.com From: "lastminute.com" Subject: Decollez pour Madrid ou repartez avec 2000 euros Reason: www.lastminute.com, weeklynews2.lastminute.com [known spammer domains] ----- \\NTS1\HOME\SPAM\INETMAIL\INBOX\MSG13.msg To: terabites.com%gep2@terabites.com From: "Lewis Cartwright" Subject: look good for your wife our husband Reason: t Aga [garbage HTML tags used to obscure message content] ----- \\NTS1\HOME\SPAM\INETMAIL\INBOX\y3988397.msg To: terabites.com%gep2@terabites.com From: Patrick Douglas Crispen Subject: Tourbus -- 8 July 03 -- Attachment Warning / Validators Reason: -------------+ * Does your desk look like a toxic waste dump? * Do you have piles of paper everywhere? * Do you waste an hour a day looking for stuff that's "lost" on the top of your desk? New eBook, "Winning The Fight Between You and Your Desk" shows you how to take a desk that looks like a waste dump, and transform it into one that resembles the flight deck of an aircraft carrier. Subject: ABCNEWS.com U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba.txt Reason: ehg-dig.hitbox.com [disreputable domain referenced] ----- \\NTS1\HOME\SPAM\INETMAIL\INBOX\MSG15.msg To: terabites.com%gep2@terabites.com From: "Larry Pfeffer" Subject: Re; XML Reason: !--$/TEMPLATE [another case where I need to allow a trusted sender to send appropriate things] [end quote] Anyhow, what's important here is that this list gives me an indea of what the filter-held E-mail in question was represented as containing (the subject), who supposedly sent it, how it was addressed, and what the filtering system found in it that it didn't like. Based on that, I can (manually, for now) revise the filter, review the message, trash it, deliver it anyway, or whatever. This is the first stage towards a more automated "rapid triage" that will help me to refine the permission list. 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 Jul 8 11:57:31 2003 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 LAA28325 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:57:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zuq0-0001wV-8a for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:57:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h68Fv4cQ007461 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:57:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zuq0-0001wG-4d for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:57:04 -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 LAA28309; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:57:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zupy-00032k-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:57:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zupy-00032h-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:57:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zupy-0001uF-Cg; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:57:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zup4-0001kT-JC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:56:06 -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 LAA28253 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:56:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zup3-00031u-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:56:05 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zup2-00031U-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:56:05 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19Zuou-0007on-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:55:56 +0100 In-Reply-To: <006101c34565$be01ac60$0a2458d8@MNR01> Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" 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: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:55:56 +0100 > >An side benefit of this interaction is that one can percieve a failure >to heed this notification can be considered abuse and therefore lead to >more aggressive countermeasures - such as blocking sender IPs and >Networks at gateway routers - thus denying the sender's ability to >compromize the network. > Yes, you could do something like this. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if you'd have a stronger case in law (for damages?) if the "trespass" continues in the face of explicit rejections. But me not lawyer. Maybe there's someone on the list qualified to give an opinion - pro bono of course? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 8 12:49:37 2003 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 MAA00245 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:49:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZveQ-0005Zl-Hf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 12:49:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h68GnAlN021433 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:49:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZveQ-0005Zc-DV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 12:49:10 -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 MAA00215; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:49:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZveO-0003Uf-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 12:49:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZveO-0003Uc-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 12:49:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZveG-0005XK-Km; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 12:49:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZveB-0005X0-SD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 12:48:55 -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 MAA00207 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:48:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZveA-0003UN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 12:48:54 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zve9-0003UK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 12:48:53 -0400 Received: from cb (12-239-236-171.client.attbi.com[12.239.236.171](untrusted sender)) by attbi.com (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <2003070816481901400rosoie>; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:48:19 +0000 From: "Christopher Bird" To: "'ASRG'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through 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, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <3F0A876D.5050704@garbagedump.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: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:48:29 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is similar to what I do as well. One issue I found was that the from and replyto fields of an incoming spam ae often spoofed and have the address of someone I know in them. This actic is becoming more and more popular (witness the mail returned to my email address when I didn't send it). However that does seem to be a small price to pay for such excellent performance. I think there is a challenge and that is to make the handling of email a lazy practice. I suspect that a large number of users have no interest in doing anything but open their mail and have the stuff they want show up and the stuff they don't want magically go away. Shades of the TV dinner approach to eating. I want something good enough that doesn't put me out too much. Of course, for those of us in the network business, the issues are a bi different. Wwe have to provide the defences, we have to keep our customers' confidence high, we have to stop our own systems from being inundated with junk... So what our end customers want and what we need to do intersect, but are not congruent. Has anyone here read David MacAuley's "Motel of the msyteries?" It is a parable about archeologists discovering an ancient civilization (aka a motel) that was buried when the government reduced the price of junk snail mail. I suspect the members of this group will find the parable instructive! I sure did. Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of C. Wegrzyn > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 3:57 AM > To: Jon Kyme > Cc: ASRG > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through > > > Let me tell you what I do with SPAM. I don't think this is all the > problematic. > > In either C/R mode or Filter mode (I use Cyrus with Sieve to support > this) I move messages that I expect into my Inbox. The first line of > defense in my system is the C/R system. When I join a list or > want email > from someone I setup the C/R system to bypass it's work by adding the > appropriate email addresses (and where I expect to see them - To, CC, > etc). If the address is in the list, no C/R is required. If > the address > isn't in any list, a challenge is issued. If the response is > given, it > moves into the inbox. If no response is given within a day > the message > is put in to the Junk folder. If a response is given it is moved into > the inbox. > > When I log in to my account the spam filters run (I use the Mozilla > email reader that supports Bayesan filtering). When the > filter catches > it goes into the Junk folder. Everything else stays in the > Inbox. What > has this done: I normally reject 99% or better of spam; I get > 4-5 in my > inbox. I spend a few minutes to figure out what happened - how it got > through - and mostly adjust my filters. Yes, occassionally I do find > valid messages in the Junk folder, and for those I also train > the filter > to not pick them up. > > Now it isn't a perfect system - it won't catch all spam and > mark it as > such. It will tag certain valid messages as spam (for instance the > filters originally put all messages from ASRG that had SPAM in the > hearder into the Junk folder! lol). But with a little work it > does get > rid of the problem, as far as I am concerned. > > Chuck Wegrzyn > > > > Jon Kyme wrote: > > >>Just ran across this quote from the John Gilmore of the EFF > >>(http://www.politechbot.com/p-04927.html): > >> > >> > >>----snip---- > >>After years of divisive discussions, a very similar > pledge/oath/policy > >>was what EFF was able to come to agreement on: > >> > >>"Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all > non-spam messages > >>reach their intended recipients." > >> > >>Perhaps none of us has yet come up with a silver bullet to solve the > >>problem of spam -- but it IS within our power to solve the > problem of > >>overzealous anti-spam measures. > >>----snip---- > >> > >> > > > >Unless my "anti-spam" system is perfect, there must be no silent > >false-positives for this to be true. Either a sender whose > message is > >not delivered because of the action of some "anti-spam" > system must be > >able to know this. And be able to find out what they can do > about it. > >(This is a very strong argument for "spam" rejection to > happen during > >the SMTP - or whatever - transaction; we don't want to be > sending DSN > >or challenges to forged senders.) Or, the "receiver" must be be > >informed that the message hasn't been delivered, and be able to do > >something about it (but this imposes a cost on the receiver). > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 Tue Jul 8 14:02:52 2003 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 OAA02336 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:02:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZwnI-00011k-Ch for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:02:24 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h68I2Or4003942 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:02:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZwnI-00011V-8I for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:02:24 -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 OAA02331; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:02:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZwnF-00042Q-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:02:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZwnF-00042N-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:02:21 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zwmv-0000zZ-II; Tue, 08 Jul 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 19ZwmE-0000zJ-5H for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:01:18 -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 OAA02327 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:01:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZwmB-00042I-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:01:15 -0400 Received: from 000-252-942.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.227.213] helo=68.27.227.213 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zwm9-000421-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:01:14 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030708140040.00babdb8@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Paul Judge , "Eric Dean" 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] 0. General - IPR Disclosure Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 08 Jul 2003 14:00:41 -0400 Eric Dean and myself have been working on a CRI protocol to allow different C/R systems to be able to communicate with each other. MailBlocks, Inc. has informed me today regarding their IPR claims in the draft of the protocol: >"As it stands, it appears that our patent portfolio, which includes the >Cobb Patent (#6,199,102) and the Heiner Patent (#6,112,227), is applicable >to the draft version." I will be adding this information to the IPR document. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 8 14:36:44 2003 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 OAA03455 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:36:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZxK5-0003h4-RB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:36:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h68IaHrm014192 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:36:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZxK5-0003gp-N7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:36:17 -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 OAA03443; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:36:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZxK3-0004RT-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:36:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZxK2-0004RQ-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:36:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZxJp-0003di-MJ; Tue, 08 Jul 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 19ZxJe-0003dR-2Y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:35:50 -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 OAA03434 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:35:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZxJb-0004R9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:35:47 -0400 Received: from 000-252-942.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.227.213] helo=68.27.227.213 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZxJZ-0004Qx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:35:46 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030708143319.00b9d090@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] 0. General - 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: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:35:22 -0400 The IPR document has been updated with the following changes: "Added section on e-postage patents and some patents to it (#5), added new list posting references (#0.2), added another response from MailBlocks, Inc. (#1)" The document can be found at: http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 8 14:37:31 2003 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 OAA03483 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:37:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZxKq-0003mH-HA for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:37:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h68Ib4ow014520 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:37:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZxKq-0003m7-EL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:37:04 -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 OAA03474; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:37:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZxKn-0004S2-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:37:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZxKn-0004Rz-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:37:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZxKn-0003iT-F7; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:37:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZxKC-0003h8-KJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:36:24 -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 OAA03448 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:36:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZxKA-0004Rc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:36:22 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZxK8-0004RY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:36:21 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (pnh@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h68IaDWG023077; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:36:14 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA09864; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:36:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16139.3869.242750.195932@world.std.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Barry Shein , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707202503.00b3dcf0@std5.imagineis.com> References: <007d01c344de$d00e6a60$04555ccc@kensington> <5.2.0.9.2.20030707171928.037d26a0@pop.pocketmail.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030707202503.00b3dcf0@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: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:36:13 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On July 7, 2003 at 20:29 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > >Howsabout when it's 200+ hijacked servers banging at you full-speed > >with the same spam? That's the reality. > > > >Is the proposal to send the hundreds of msgs per minute each a proper > >handwritten no thank you note? > >.... > > Therefore just to clarify your statement, are you suggesting these spam > emails should not be rejected but rather thrown away silently? So within I think when you're under that kind of attack you have little choice, even just blocking the route tends to invite the hijacked hosts to go into a retry loop. > the consent model, if you specified that you do not wish to receive email > from dial-up IP addresses, any email coming from those addresses should be > thrown away and not even reported or tracked somewhere? It's often a matter of survival. Or, put more pragmatically, imagine it as a zero sum game, if you try to attend to each msg in such an attack, even to log it, you might find yourself unable to deliver someone else's legitimate mail in a timely manner (for example, servers are often set to begin rejecting connections at a given load.) I suppose one can hypothesize arbitrary amounts of computing power (remember, we're talking about 200+ hijacked computers banging on your servers, along with everything else) but at what point is one spending significant money and administrative/management effort just to accomodate spammers' resource requirements or some idealized notion of how it all might be handled? -- -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 Jul 8 14:46:35 2003 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 OAA04074 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:46:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZxTc-0004tl-3A for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:46:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h68Ik8Ac018817 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:46:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZxTb-0004tQ-UA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:46:07 -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 OAA04050; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:46:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZxTZ-0004cq-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:46:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZxTY-0004cn-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:46:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZxTV-0004r9-NM; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:46:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZxSr-0004j9-9M for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:45:21 -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 OAA03898 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:45:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZxSo-0004ae-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:45:18 -0400 Received: from mxsmta02.inithost.com ([209.235.30.104] helo=mxsmta02.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZxSn-0004aQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:45:17 -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 <20030708184308.VPCQ7659.mxsmta02.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com> for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:43:08 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0B113C.1070706@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 CC: asrg@ietf.org References: <006b01c34568$594ab750$0a2458d8@MNR01> In-Reply-To: <006b01c34568$594ab750$0a2458d8@MNR01> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Another way to detect spam....good or bad? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 08 Jul 2003 14:45:16 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I know this is going to sound strange and it might be really off the wall but I have been looking at some of the spam that hit my mail box this morning. I noticed two kinds of spam: 1) From a legit email address; usually has a email address in the mail message; 2) Spammed through a relay; the message never seems to have an email address in the message. In the latter message I always see a postal address and usually a telephone number (what idiot spammer would send a mail message without a contact?). What idiot spammer would send an email message with an email address in it? So now I have a three tiered method to getting rid of spam in my inbox. First is to use C/R to find a real human. Second is to use a Bayesian filter and third is to look for an email address in the message. If I check the email address in the message (if one is present) I would expect to find the domain part in the email message headers (yes I know a stretch but ...). What do you think? Chuck Wegrzyn _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 8 14:59:57 2003 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 OAA04633 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:59:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZxgX-0005ZO-UF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:59:30 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h68IxTnt021405 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:59:29 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZxgX-0005Z8-Pk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:59:29 -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 OAA04600; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:59:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZxgU-0004pH-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:59:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZxgU-0004pE-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:59:26 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zxg6-0005UX-79; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:59:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zxfe-0005Ty-Vz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:58:35 -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 OAA04541 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:58:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zxfc-0004oD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:58:32 -0400 Received: from mxsmta01.inithost.com ([209.235.30.103] helo=mxsmta01.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zxfa-0004o8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:58:31 -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 <20030708190022.RQMP6624.mxsmta01.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:00:22 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0B1458.8050805@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: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" CC: Kurt Magnusson , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D22EE@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D22EE@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070901040200030204030106" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 08 Jul 2003 14:58:32 -0400 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070901040200030204030106 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I know..that is why I never return it. I just put it in my Junk folder and delete. Please re-read my email. Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >How can you return mail to the "sender" when you don't know who that is? > >I get tens of false bounces of mails I never sent every day. Most of the >time it is a virus that has hijacked my address, sometimes it is spam. > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: C. Wegrzyn [mailto:wegrzyn@garbagedump.com] >>Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 7:52 AM >>To: Kurt Magnusson >>Cc: asrg@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through >> >> >>I keep seeing the statement being made that spam should be >>returned to >>the sender. I might suggest something slightly different: why >>not have >>it delivered and marked as SPAM in the Subject line? In this way at >>least I can check to see if it really is spam? I'm afraid >>that if it is >>returned and we have false positives some mail might be >>returned that I >>do want to see. >> >>Chuck Wegrzyn >> >> >>Kurt Magnusson wrote: >> >> >> >>>Elric Pedder wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>>Behalf Of Yakov Shafranovich >>>>>Just ran across this quote from the John Gilmore of the EFF >>>>>(http://www.politechbot.com/p-04927.html): >>>>>----snip---- >>>>>"Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam >>>>>messages reach >>>>>their intended recipients." >>>>> >>>>>Perhaps none of us has yet come up with a silver bullet >>>>> >>>>> >>to solve the >> >> >>>>>problem of spam -- but it IS within our power to solve >>>>> >>>>> >>the problem of >> >> >>>>>overzealous anti-spam measures. >>>>>----snip---- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>I don't believe you can stop false positives -- if only because >>>>people will have widely varying opinions on what SPAM (to them) >>>>is. It is, however, very dangerous to allow false positives >>>>because if anything the perceived "reliability" of the Internet >>>>becomes compromised. >>>> >>>>I would recommend >>>> >>>>"Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all messages >>>>either reach the intended recipient, or are returned to the >>>>sender, or the sender notified." >>>> >>>> >>>Elric >>> >>>I do agree with you regarding the last, we should return >>> >>> >>undeliverables, >> >> >>>but I do not agree that we need to live with false >>> >>> >>positives. Some months >> >> >>>back I refered to a method I called the Earnest method, because it >>>uses the >>>URL's and phone nos the spammers want us to use. I've run >>> >>> >>it with a proof >> >> >>>of concept solution since early april and have, since I cleaned out >>>some headers >>>addresses I collected when I consentrated on sender ID, in >>> >>> >>mid-may not >> >> >>>have >>>had any false positives. It do occational allow new domains, but as >>>long I am >>>sure non-spams get through and I can handle the new ones >>> >>> >>simply, it isn't >> >> >>>a problem. >>> >>>But if you to guess what is spam, based on patterns in a >>> >>> >>letter the issue >> >> >>>is important, but if we can eliminate that guess, working >>> >>> >>with what the >> >> >>>spammers want us do, contact them, then we lessen the risks >>> >>> >>of filtering >> >> >>>away Aunti Agathas messages. If people do send a URL with a spammer >>>domain, pity, or we learn them to write them, so they passthrough. I >>>have no problem with getting a non-active URL from my dear aunt, >>>because I know why I need to copy and paste it. But spam with non- >>>active URL's will not generate the requred traffic to the >>> >>> >>advertiser. It >> >> >>>is to complicated. >>> >>>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 >>> >>> >>> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Asrg mailing list >>Asrg@ietf.org >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg >> >> >> > > > --------------070901040200030204030106 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I know..that is why I never return it. I just put it in my Junk folder and delete. Please re-read my email.

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
How can you return mail to the "sender" when you don't know who that is?

I get tens of false bounces of mails I never sent every day. Most of the
time it is a virus that has hijacked my address, sometimes it is spam.

  
-----Original Message-----
From: C. Wegrzyn [mailto:wegrzyn@garbagedump.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 7:52 AM
To: Kurt Magnusson
Cc: asrg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through


I keep seeing the statement being made that spam should be 
returned to 
the sender. I might suggest something slightly different: why 
not have 
it delivered and marked as SPAM in the Subject line? In this way at 
least I can check to see if it really is spam? I'm afraid 
that if it is 
returned and we have false positives some mail might be 
returned that I 
do want to see.

Chuck Wegrzyn


Kurt Magnusson wrote:

    
Elric Pedder wrote:

      
Behalf Of Yakov Shafranovich
Just ran across this quote from the John Gilmore of the EFF
(http://www.politechbot.com/p-04927.html):
----snip----
"Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam
messages reach
their intended recipients."

Perhaps none of us has yet come up with a silver bullet 
          
to solve the
    
problem of spam -- but it IS within our power to solve 
          
the problem of
    
overzealous anti-spam measures.
----snip----
          
I don't believe you can stop false positives -- if only because
people will have widely varying opinions on what SPAM (to them)
is.  It is, however, very dangerous to allow false positives
because if anything the perceived "reliability" of the Internet
becomes compromised.

I would recommend

"Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all messages
either reach the intended recipient, or are returned to the
sender, or the sender notified."
        
Elric

I do agree with you regarding the last, we should return 
      
undeliverables,
    
but I do not agree that we need to live with false 
      
positives. Some months
    
back I refered to a method I called the Earnest method, because it 
uses the
URL's and phone nos the spammers want us to use. I've run 
      
it with a proof
    
of concept solution since early april and have, since I cleaned out 
some headers
addresses I collected when I consentrated on sender ID, in 
      
mid-may not 
    
have
had any false positives. It do occational allow new domains, but as 
long I am
sure non-spams get through and I can handle the new ones 
      
simply, it isn't
    
a problem.

But if you to guess what is spam, based on patterns in a 
      
letter the issue
    
is important, but if we can eliminate that guess, working 
      
with what the
    
spammers want us do, contact them, then we lessen the risks 
      
of filtering
    
away Aunti Agathas messages. If people do send a URL with a spammer
domain, pity, or we learn them to write them, so they passthrough. I
have no problem with getting a non-active URL from my dear aunt,
because I know why I need to copy and paste it. But spam with non-
active URL's will not generate the requred traffic to the 
      
advertiser. It
    
is to complicated.

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

      

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
--------------070901040200030204030106-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 8 15:24:53 2003 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 PAA06598 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:24:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zy4e-0007iJ-S1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:24:25 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h68JOOmr029645 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:24:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zy4e-0007i4-Nj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:24:24 -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 PAA06588; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:24:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zy4d-000587-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:24:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zy4d-000584-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:24:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zy4H-0007ft-Qf; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:24:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zy3N-0007fD-V8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:23:05 -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 PAA06535 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:23:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zy3M-00056V-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:23:04 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zy3M-00056R-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:23:04 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19Zy3L-0005PR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 20:23:03 +0100 In-Reply-To: <16139.3869.242750.195932@world.std.com> Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.7] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 82.69.7.27 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, 08 Jul 2003 20:23:03 +0100 > > On July 7, 2003 at 20:29 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) > wrote: > > >Howsabout when it's 200+ hijacked servers banging at you full-speed > > >with the same spam? That's the reality. > > > > > >Is the proposal to send the hundreds of msgs per minute each a proper > > >handwritten no thank you note? > > >.... > > > > Therefore just to clarify your statement, are you suggesting these spam > > emails should not be rejected but rather thrown away silently? So > within > > > I think when you're under that kind of attack you have little choice, > even just blocking the route tends to invite the hijacked hosts to go > into a retry loop. > You mean not accepting connections from some host drives them to hammer on your firewall? I think that this is a truly exceptional situation. For which exceptions should clearly be made. I'm surprised that you manage to conserve resource by accepting these connections and blackholing the messages. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 8 15:32:41 2003 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 PAA06854 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:32:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZyCA-000872-7v for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:32:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h68JWA6P031180 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:32:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZyCA-00086p-4y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:32:10 -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 PAA06841; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:32:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZyC8-0005DA-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:32:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZyC8-0005D7-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:32:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZyC1-00083j-Bu; Tue, 08 Jul 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 19ZyBk-000837-Du for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:31:45 -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 PAA06832 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:31:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZyBj-0005Co-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:31:43 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZyBh-0005Cl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:31:42 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (pnh@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h68JV58J010358; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:31:07 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA22810; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:31:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16139.7159.583310.270024@world.std.com> To: Paul Judge Cc: "'Barry Shein'" , "'Dave Crocker'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. - Spam Characterization - Possible Measurements (wa s : RE: Two ways to look at 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: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:31:03 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On July 8, 2003 at 06:00 paul.judge@ciphertrust.com (Paul Judge) wrote: > > This relates to the idea that the only reason spammers can > > operate effectively is because they exploit thousands of > > hijacked computers which gives them location mobility (not > > geographic but in ip space.) > > > > If this can be shown to be true via measurement it leads to > > the conclusion that perhaps the problem with spam is not what > > leads to this idea of a "consent" framework as originally > > proposed in this charter, but, instead, shows spam is almost > > entirely a security problem. > > The consent framework does not contradict that spam is a security problem. I I agree that "contradict" is far too absolute a term. However, if someone was driving thru your otherwise quiet neighborhood at 3AM blasting ads on a loudspeaker taking away or disabling that loudspeaker is a lot of progress, maybe all one really needs. Sure, if the guy gets out of his car (having lost the loudspeaker) and insists on banging on doors instead build a fence with a locked gate. But knocking on every door is still pretty ineffective compared to driving thru with a loudspeaker, maybe so ineffective that he won't even try it, can't make a living that way. Analogously, I've really come to believe that it's the amplification through the use of thousands of hijacked computers which is at the heart of the spam problem. The problem is that nickel-dime spammers can currently utilize much more hardware and bandwidth than they could ever possibly produce a business model for and use it to harass, I don't know, 100 million people, each dozens or hundreds of times per day. One has to get their mind around the scope of what's going on. I realize it'd also be nice to be able to have a generalized consent framework for all kinds of uses. My issue is not one of mutual exclusivity, only scale. > believe that the unauthorized use of resources (for sending messages as well > as those of the recipients) are grounds for that statement. Additionally, > the potential disruption in availability is another reason for such a view. > > While one path is to focus on the 'security' of the hijacked computers, I > think that we have learned over the years that they will continue to find > new means of injecting their messages into the system (relays, dialups, > hijacked machines, proxies, webforms, free mail services, etc.). I think if MS insists on continuing to produce such trivially hijacked OS's and no general means is installed to counter-act that problem (e.g., monitoring for virus-like behavior with automatic slowdown or shutoff, or fixing the OS) then yes the problem is hopeless. But thus far I can't even get much recognition (particularly outside of a few people on this list) that this sort of thing, the hijacking and amplification, is the real problem, and it's not analogous to sticking up a "No Solictors, Please" sign but rather more like the creep with the loudspeaker or someone breaking into cable or satellite signals. I think it's fair to say that this generalized problem is not entirely unique to the internet and technologies have to go through some changes to prevent widespread abuse of the infrastructure. For example, blue boxes in the 1970's when the phone system allowed people to manipulate corporate WATS lines and other long distance billing services through the use of a few cheap parts from the corner Radio Shack. I remember in the late 80's there was some kind of security problem with the satellite downlink (or feed uplink) for our cable TV system in Boston and someone would inject prank programming. Sure you're still left with end-to-end issues of all sorts and they need to be addressed. But maybe like telemarketing get rid of the massive fraud and hijacking and you're mostly left with people who don't hide their identity and are mostly controllable by more conventional means such as the FTC's do not call list. Although one can imagine fancy, intelligent "consent" systems attached to their phone (and I realize some people have at least simple systems which utilize caller-id etc) most of the problem is taken care of by some amount of accountability and security, plus things like do-not-call lists and general social pressures (imagine if a company with an actual name and location began ringing everyone's phone every hour with a pre-recorded ad, even if it was legal they couldn't stand the backlash for long.) I guess what I'm saying is that ultimately one has to think in terms of society and productivity etc. Having everyone managing their own consent software all day is not the way to run things. We have to find a way to get rid of 99% of this crap, and then sure if they want to block their ex or some vendor they regret ever giving their phone number to once in a while, fine, it happens. But right now you could be typing in filtering/consent tuning 9-5 and then go home. > Therefore, it seems that while some focus on each of these makes sense, > overall we should maintain the broader view of the problem. For example, you > mentioned that spammers exhibit an instability in the IP space. Is there a > way to measure this relative to senders of wanted messages? Can this > relationship be used to detect new sources of unwanted messages or to > determine stable sources of wanted messages? This is useful in the > prevention of unwanted messages and the preservation of wanted messages. > Such a heuristic could be part of reputation system. Take a corpus of messages, say over a month: Save the following tuple for each msg: that's first/last use of that src ip / dest mailbox pair. Obviously the spam flag has to be derived from some other measure like does the msg trip (for some value of trip) spamassassin, rate above some value. Now do some descriptive statistics on last-first grouped by the spam? flag, something like a Chi-Square or Student T ought to be sufficient since you're looking for a discrete result; does last-first predict (separate) whether it's spam? What I think will be more interesting are the descriptive stats themselves, such as what the mean and std deviations are for each group. Or maybe we'd find no such result but that's 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 Tue Jul 8 15:50:42 2003 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 PAA07604 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:50:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZyTe-0000j2-G7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:50:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h68JoEKi002782 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:50:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZyTe-0000in-C9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:50:14 -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 PAA07581; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:50:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZyTc-0005WW-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:50:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZyTc-0005WT-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:50:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZyTR-0000gm-Vz; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:50:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZyTM-0000gO-Dt for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:49:56 -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 PAA07573 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:49:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZyTI-0005WB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:49:52 -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 19ZyTI-0005W5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:49:52 -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 19ZuYA-0000ev-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:38:38 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 08 Jul 2003 20:23:03 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: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:38:38 -0400 "Jon Kyme" wrote: > You mean not accepting connections from some host drives them to > hammer on your firewall? Yes. It increases the number of TCP SYN packets by a factor of 10 or more. Accepting all connections increases the total traffic, but the number of SYN packets drops dramatically. > I think that this is a truly exceptional situation. I've seen it, as have a number of other people with spamtraps. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 8 16:09:49 2003 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 QAA08153 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:09:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zym9-0002Uk-Rn for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:09:21 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h68K9Lpd009584 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:09:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zym9-0002UV-NL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:09:21 -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 QAA08050; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:09:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zym8-0005lJ-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:09:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zym7-0005lG-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:09:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zylp-0002RO-PF; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:09:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zyl1-0002J4-Mx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:08:11 -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 QAA08020 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:08:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zyl0-0005kU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:08:10 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zykz-0005kR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:08:09 -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 h68K6j8J015396; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:06:46 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA01751; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:06:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16139.9300.948576.792273@world.std.com> To: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through In-Reply-To: References: <16139.3869.242750.195932@world.std.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, 8 Jul 2003 16:06:44 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On July 8, 2003 at 20:23 jrk@merseymail.com (Jon Kyme) wrote: > You mean not accepting connections from some host drives them to > hammer on your firewall? > I think that this is a truly exceptional situation. The term of art is "requeue & retry", which would be the standard behavior of every MTA I've ever worked with upon connection failure. Put 10,000 spam msgs headed for your host on some server and even 30 minute retry times don't help much, they get to the end of the list and they're ready to start again with the first one which failed. For which exceptions > should clearly be made. I'm surprised that you manage to conserve resource > by accepting these connections and blackholing the messages. -- -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 Jul 8 17:00:59 2003 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 RAA10183 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 17:00:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZzZf-0005mF-8q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:00:32 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h68L0VZg022201 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 17:00:31 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZzZf-0005m0-2k for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:00:31 -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 RAA10086; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 17:00:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZzZc-0006SI-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:00:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZzZb-0006SF-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:00:27 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZzZC-0005dS-5a; Tue, 08 Jul 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 19ZzYN-0005cG-G4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:59:11 -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 QAA09923 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:59:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZzYL-0006Oj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:59:09 -0400 Received: from mnr1.microneil.com ([216.88.36.96]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZzYK-0006Ob-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:59:08 -0400 Received: by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix, from userid 93) id 2CB9129C069; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:58:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MicroNeil.com (mail.microneil.com [216.88.36.161]) by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEC5129C033 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:58:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MNR01 [216.88.36.10] by MicroNeil.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.05) id A06557F0092; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:58:13 -0400 From: "Pete McNeil" To: "'ASRG'" Subject: RE: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through Message-ID: <009801c34593$a4618770$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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 In-Reply-To: <16139.9300.948576.792273@world.std.com> Importance: Normal X-Declude-Spoolname: D3065092.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: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:58:11 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On >Behalf Of Barry Shein >Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 4:07 PM >On July 8, 2003 at 20:23 jrk@merseymail.com (Jon Kyme) wrote: > > You mean not accepting connections from some host drives >them to > hammer on your firewall? > I think that this is a >truly exceptional situation. > >The term of art is "requeue & retry", which would be the >standard behavior of every MTA I've ever worked with upon >connection failure. > >Put 10,000 spam msgs headed for your host on some server and >even 30 minute retry times don't help much, they get to the >end of the list and they're ready to start again with the >first one which failed. Presume for a moment that a consent policy is adaptive so that it can adjust it's "rejection policy" when abuse is detected. Abuse = a failure to go away when told to (loosely). I had recommended that the most aggressive level of rejection would be to reject the connection. Based on your comments perhaps the highest level (after that) is to accept and silently eat messages from that SENDER or SENDERs. Assuming that a standard consent policy framework allows systems within a COT (Circle Of Trust) to adopt the policy decisions of their peers under some conditions, then we might presume that a wide collection of systems would adopt the same rejection policy. I think this is not the final solution though - rather it is a safety valve - a "cry for help" when a system elects this rejection policy. What is needed at that point (or perhaps before) is DSQP (Dynamic Squelch Propagation) where the decision to reject packets from the offending source can be propogated as close as possible to that source - essentially shutting it down. (DSQP is a mechanism needed for any kind of abuse... consent policies are simply a good way to pull the trigger.) DSQP (or some other name for the same thing) seems to be beyond the scope of this group and ultimately would be a high-level network tuning mechanism that effects routers. However this group should consider making the recommendation for such a protocol and should implement the structures needed in the consent framework to interface with protocols like DSQP in response to abuse. _M _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 8 21:17:36 2003 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 VAA18186 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 21:17:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a3a1-0006l1-EP for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 21:17:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h691H9D8025974 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 21:17:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a3a1-0006kr-7k for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 21:17:09 -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 VAA18177; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 21:17:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a3Zy-0002YL-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 21:17:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a3Zy-0002YI-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 21:17:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a3Yu-0006WO-U1; Tue, 08 Jul 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 19a3Y0-0006Li-RJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 21:15:04 -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 VAA18158 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 21:15:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a3Xx-0002Xr-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 21:15:01 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a3Xx-0002Xn-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 21:15:01 -0400 Received: from art.lextek.com (12-254-130-29.client.attbi.com[12.254.130.29](untrusted sender)) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with SMTP id <2003070901142601200cnegoe>; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 01:14:26 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030708190335.04599008@mail.1s.com> X-Sender: PollardA@mail.1s.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Asrg@ietf.org From: Art Pollard Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Asrg] Forged Paths... Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 08 Jul 2003 19:14:49 -0600 One of the big issues when it comes to spam is tracing where the message has originated from. Of course, this is complicated when people forge headers to try to obfuscate the origin of the e-mail. What I propose is this: During each jump on the path that the e-mail takes to arrive to the sender, each interim mail server digitally signs the path. So, typically, the path goes like this: ,,,etc. What I propose is: , , , etc. The signature would use the servers public / private keys and would be computed over the paths up to that point. Thus, if you were server 3, you would digitally sign the path for server1, Server2, Server3. Then if someone wants (or more specifically their software), they could request the public keys of the servers along the transmission path and ensure that the mail message actually took the path that the Path: header claims it did. Yes, I am aware that one RFC says that headers aren't supposed to get above 900 bytes or so in length. I think that this will need to change eventually anyway, we might as well start now. In this way, we can ensure that each message has an originated server that may be tracked down. (Or the message simply gets rejected.) Of course, this may be easily extended by adding a to the path so it may be tracked back to the originating server and user. I doubt that this would break many mail servers and even if it does, given an adequate amount of advance notice, I doubt it would be a problem anyway. -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 exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 8 23:31:29 2003 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 XAA20433 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 23:31:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a5fZ-0006D7-2n for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:31:02 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h693V18D023870 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 23:31:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a5fY-0006Ct-VA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:31:00 -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 XAA20418; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 23:30:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a5fW-00039k-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:30:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a5fW-00039h-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:30:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a5eb-000674-SX; Tue, 08 Jul 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 19a5dq-00066Z-KK for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:29:14 -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 XAA20412 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 23:29:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a5do-00039b-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:29:12 -0400 Received: from 000-232-148.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.145.247] helo=68.27.145.247 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a5dm-00039Y-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:29:11 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030708232848.00b5e198@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: 6. Proposals - Signing Received paths (was Re: [Asrg] Forged Paths...) 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, 08 Jul 2003 23:28:49 -0400 At 07:14 PM 7/8/2003 -0600, Art Pollard wrote: >One of the big issues when it comes to spam is tracing where the message >has originated from. Of course, this is complicated when people forge >headers to try to obfuscate the origin of the e-mail. > >What I propose is this: > >During each jump on the path that the e-mail takes to arrive to the >sender, each interim mail server digitally signs the path. > >So, typically, the path goes like this: > >,,,etc. > >What I propose is: > >, , , etc. > >The signature would use the servers public / private keys and would be >computed over the paths up to that point. Thus, if you were server 3, you >would digitally sign the path for server1, Server2, Server3. > >Then if someone wants (or more specifically their software), they could >request the public keys of the servers along the transmission path and >ensure that the mail message actually took the path that the Path: header >claims it did. > >Yes, I am aware that one RFC says that headers aren't supposed to get >above 900 bytes or so in length. I think that this will need to change >eventually anyway, we might as well start now. In this way, we can ensure >that each message has an originated server that may be tracked down. (Or >the message simply gets rejected.) > >Of course, this may be easily extended by adding a to the path so >it may be tracked back to the originating server and user. > >I doubt that this would break many mail servers and even if it does, given >an adequate amount of advance notice, I doubt it would be a problem anyway. What you are suggesting is that each "Received:" line in the message be signed. This may be done by either including the signature in the "Received:" header which would require changing RFC 2821, section 4.4 OR perhaps via an optional header. The question is does it matter? In today's Internet structure it is rare to see messages being delivered through more than one system - most messages are delivered directly from the originating MTA to the receiving MTA. So anything with extra received lines would look suspicious. Additionally, the real originator's IP would be inside the headers anyway, so does obfuscation make a difference? If we start tracing this message over all of the originating paths, then we will find the system that sent it anyway. Also, using C/R or callback mechanisms to request from the originating server whether this message was actually sent might make this irrelevant. It sounds like a interesting idea but the details of signing, how the data is passed and whether the certificate is passed also, must be worked out. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 8 23:34:11 2003 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 XAA20530 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 23:34:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a5iB-0006hM-LK for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:33:44 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h693Xh3L025747 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 23:33:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a5iB-0006hC-IR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:33:43 -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 XAA20513; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 23:33:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a5i9-0003BJ-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:33:41 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a5i8-0003BG-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:33:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a5hU-0006RD-UO; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:33:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a5h1-0006Ll-By for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:32:31 -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 XAA20464 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 23:32:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a5gz-0003AO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:32:29 -0400 Received: from 000-232-148.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.145.247] helo=68.27.145.247 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a5gx-0003AJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:32:28 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030708233037.00b58be8@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] 0. General - Group Direction 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: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:32:12 -0400 Is there active maintenance being done on these documents in response to the activity on the mailing list? Some of these documents look out of date. Additionally, are list discussions being summarized? Yakov At 07:12 AM 7/8/2003 -0400, Paul Judge wrote: >I think that you hit on it with the understand, propose, and evaluate steps. >The use of three verbs was quite intentional. > >Also, if you look at the ASRG Work Items list >(http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg-work-items.txt), you will notice that the >work items fall under these same three phases. > >The understanding phase includes: >1. inventory of problems work >(http://www.irtf.org/asrg/draft-asrg-inventory-of-problems.txt) >2. the analysis and characterization work > >The proposal phase includes: >Foundation: >3. requirements document >(https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05084.htm >l) >4. the taxonomy >(http://www.irtf.org/asrg/draft-asrg-taxonomy-anti-spam-systems.txt) >5. identification of standardization requirements >(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt) >x. consent framework document >(http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-consent-framework.html) >Proposals: >6. proposals of new solutions (lots of these; they just need to be revisited >in relationship with the req's, the evaluation model, and the consent >framework) We probably need to create a template for proposals. >7. best practices documents. > >The evaluation phase includes: >8.a. creating an evaluation model >(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt) >8.c. evaluation of the solutions (it seems to be more efficient to require >this as part of proposals) > >If anyone has opinions about items that should be added to or removed from >this list, I would love to hear them. > >After we receive some feedback here, I will publish a new list of work >items. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 12:08 AM > > To: asrg@ietf.org > > Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Group Direction > > > > > > Our group was intended to do the following (from > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/minutes/asrg.htm): > > > > "ASRG was formed to UNDERSTAND the problem and collectively > > PROPOSE and > > EVALUATE solutions to allow "consent based communication." > > > > However, while we had many discussions on UNDERSTANDING the > > spam problem, > > we have not produced a document or a summary of our results > > on that issue. > > But it seems that we are currently on our way towards PROPOSING AND > > EVALUATING solutions by first developing the following tools: > > 1. Consent framework. 2. Requirements document. 3. Technical > > Considerations document. > > > > Using these tools we can then look back at the various > > proposals and start > > evaluating them. As for UNDERSTANDING the problem can we hope > > to come up > > with a document summarizing the problem or is since there are so many > > divergent views, that will not happen? > > > > In general, is there a specific roadmap or direction for the > > group? Perhaps > > we are seeking to accomplish the following goals: > > 1. Write up a document summarizing the problem. > > 2. Write up documents to be used for evaluating proposals. > > 3. Start evaluating solutions based on the first two steps. > > 4. Select areas where standards are needed and either develop > > them or pass > > on the standardization suggestions to the IETF. > > > > 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 Tue Jul 8 23:43:11 2003 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 XAA20633 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 23:43:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a5qu-0007mx-AP for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:42:44 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h693giZA029935 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 23:42:44 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a5qu-0007mk-6G for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:42:44 -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 XAA20629; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 23:42:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a5qs-0003DH-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:42:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a5qr-0003DE-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:42:41 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a5qD-0007gH-Eu; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:42:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a5pn-0007g0-Li for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:41:35 -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 XAA20626 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 23:41:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a5pl-0003D9-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:41:33 -0400 Received: from 000-232-148.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.145.247] helo=68.27.145.247 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a5pj-0003D6-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:41:32 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030708233519.00b5ccc8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Andrew Akehurst From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4. Survey of Solutions - Consent Model Cc: Asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <1057664278.3f0aad160d179@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030707021850.00ba24f0@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030703153840.00b6cc50@solidmatrix.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030703153840.00b6cc50@solidmatrix.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030707021850.00ba24f0@std5.imagineis.com> 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 XAA20627 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 08 Jul 2003 23:41:14 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 12:37 PM 7/8/2003 +0100, Andrew Akehurst wrote: >Quoting Yakov Shafranovich : > > > At 01:54 AM 7/7/2003 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: > > >> I have one worry about this. The suggested model seems to center > >> on what type of email, rather than from who, the receiver is willing > >> to receive. > > ... 8< ... > > > > I agree with you that CONSENT has not been defined properly, I am > > wondering > > how we should redefine it properly.Maybe something like this: > > > > CONSENT - an expression of wanting to receive email from a specific > > SENDER > > LACK OF CONSENT =AD an expression of not wanting to receive email fro= m a > > specific SENDER or absence of prior CONSENT for that SENDER > >Are you saying we need not distinguish between a lack of prior consent a= nd an >explicit desire not to receive e-mail from a particular sender? In the f= ormer >case, we don't know if the receiver wants messages from that sender or=20 >not. In >the latter case we know for certain the receiver does not want messages = from >that sender. >.... I think this point was mentioned before by someone else. We do need to=20 distinguish between lack of prior consent and express NON-consent. I=20 believe Paul McNeil stated them as follows: 1. CONSENT - a direct expression of wanting to receive email from a sende= r. 2. SOFT CONSENT - an indirect expression of wanting to receive email from= a=20 sender. 3. SOFT DENIED CONSENT - an indirect expression of wanting not to receive= =20 email from a sender. 4. DENIED CONSENT - a direct expression of wanting not to receive email=20 from a sender. > ........ >In the ultimate scenario where everyone uses some implementation of thi= s >consent framework it would be fine to make no distinction. However for = the >purposes of interoperability with non-compliant systems during roll-out= =20 of the >new consent framework > ........ The "new" consent framework is not replacing the current structure of the= =20 Net. It is an ABSTRACT model that allows us to evaluate all anti-spam=20 proposals. Also, it focuses on the giving the receiver power over his=20 email. However, this would remain running within SMTP as it is today unti= l=20 SMTP is replaced with something else (if ever). However, since many peopl= e=20 believe the nature of the spam to be tied to the open nature of the=20 Internet, that would mean that spam will always remain a problem and=20 consent systems will simply provide the tools for dealing with the proble= m=20 on the receiver's side. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 9 00:01:18 2003 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 AAA20980 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 00:01:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a68O-0000Ub-14 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:00:51 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6940l0n001861 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 00:00:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a68N-0000Tv-JV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:00:47 -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 AAA20951; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 00:00:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a68K-0003HE-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:00:44 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a68J-0003H9-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:00:43 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a67e-0000B8-Ix; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:00:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a673-00009N-0K for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:59:25 -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 XAA20929 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 23:59:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a670-0003Gw-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:59:22 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a670-0003Gt-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:59:22 -0400 Received: from [63.186.241.61] (account nazgul HELO [63.186.233.77]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2523705; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:59:22 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030708190335.04599008@mail.1s.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030708190335.04599008@mail.1s.com> To: Art Pollard From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Forged Paths... 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: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 23:58:21 -0400 At 7:14 PM -0600 7/8/03, Art Pollard wrote: >One of the big issues when it comes to spam is tracing where the >message has originated from. Of course, this is complicated when >people forge headers to try to obfuscate the origin of the e-mail. While in theory this could be an issue, in practice it does not tend to be. Most Received: forgeries are quite easy to detect if you probe the network to verify them. In addition, we see far less of those than we see open-relay and open-proxy spam. And in both those cases the path would presumably be signed just fine. And even if the message comes in legitimately, the fact that it's signed by (for example) 163.net still doesn't tell me if it's spam or mail from one of their legit users. -- 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 Jul 9 00:08:14 2003 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 AAA21074 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 00:08:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a6F7-000185-OT for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:07:47 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6947jfZ004335 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 00:07:45 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a6F7-00017q-JQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:07:45 -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 AAA21063; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 00:07:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a6F5-0003IU-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:07:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a6F4-0003IR-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:07:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a6EP-0000pK-HO; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:07:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a6EL-0000on-Ib for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:06:57 -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 AAA21044 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 00:06:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a6EJ-0003I4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:06:55 -0400 Received: from 000-232-148.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.145.247] helo=68.27.145.247 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a6ED-0003I1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:06:53 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030709000619.00bc1828@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Kee Hinckley , Walter Dnes From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 4. Consent Model - Consent Tokens (was Re: [Asrg] Nothing will stop spam???) Cc: ASRG 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: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:06:23 -0400 At 11:36 PM 7/8/2003 -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote: >At 1:20 AM -0400 7/7/03, Walter Dnes wrote: >>On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:14:03AM -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote >> >>> 1. Like many systems, this ties in tightly with identity. If I move >>> to a new ISP (or Comcast gets sold *again*) my email address changes. >>> How do I manage notifying all of my contacts. >> >> If it's important enough, get a personal domain, even if it's only a >>cheap email+web re-direction service to your physical ISP. You get to >>keep the address when you change ISP. > >I'm not talking about importance. I'm talking about usability. Consent >systems make domain name changes much more painful. What about consent tokens that are not tied into the SENDER's email address. Things like digital certificates, third party seals (e.g. Truste, Habeas, etc.)? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 9 00:50:51 2003 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 AAA20979 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 00:01:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a68O-0000Ua-1A for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:00:51 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6940l0B001880 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 00:00:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a68N-0000UF-Po for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:00:47 -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 AAA20953; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 00:00:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a68K-0003HH-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:00:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a68J-0003HA-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:00:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a67e-0000AF-1j; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:00:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a66x-00009I-1U for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:59:19 -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 XAA20926 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 23:59:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a66u-0003Gq-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:59:16 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a66u-0003Gi-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:59:16 -0400 Received: from [63.186.241.61] (account nazgul HELO [63.186.233.77]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2523696; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:59:15 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3F0A3714.2070108@azza.com> References: <3F03E8F5.5040107@azza.com> <3F04C5F6.6030103@azza.com> <3F0A3714.2070108@azza.com> To: Selby Hatch From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nothing will stop 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: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 23:41:15 -0400 At 9:14 PM -0600 7/7/03, Selby Hatch wrote: >I view the consent token as a separate entity from the email address. >The consent token would be inserted from some source (address book, >keyboard, token repository, etc.) into a header by the MUA That's in the case of my sending email to someone else. I'm trying to figure out how a separate consent token fits into the case of my subscribing to this mailing list (for instance). >Yes, unfortunately, unless you have a private domain, changing email >addresses requires notifying senders. But, it should not require >giving out new consent tokens. The consent framework should be such Again, recipient vs. sender issue. I should be fine receiving from people I've agreed to receive from. However what is the process for updating *their* consent to receive from *me*? And how does it work if I don't get the opportunity to notify them until *after* the change. (E.g. just got laid off.) -- 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 Jul 9 00:50:51 2003 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 AAA20981 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 00:01:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a68O-0000Uc-1I for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:00:51 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6940lJh001867 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 00:00:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a68N-0000Tw-Ln for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:00:47 -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 AAA20954; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 00:00:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a68K-0003HK-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:00:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a68K-0003HC-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:00:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a67d-0000A7-EO; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:00:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a66w-00009D-6M for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:59:18 -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 XAA20923 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 23:59:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a66t-0003Gl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:59:15 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a66t-0003Gi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:59:15 -0400 Received: from [63.186.241.61] (account nazgul HELO [63.186.233.77]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2523700; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:59:09 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030707012018.D22087@m433> References: <3F03E8F5.5040107@azza.com> <3F04C5F6.6030103@azza.com> <20030707012018.D22087@m433> To: Walter Dnes From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nothing will stop spam??? 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: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 23:36:32 -0400 At 1:20 AM -0400 7/7/03, Walter Dnes wrote: >On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:14:03AM -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote > >> 1. Like many systems, this ties in tightly with identity. If I move >> to a new ISP (or Comcast gets sold *again*) my email address changes. >> How do I manage notifying all of my contacts. > > If it's important enough, get a personal domain, even if it's only a >cheap email+web re-direction service to your physical ISP. You get to >keep the address when you change ISP. I'm not talking about importance. I'm talking about usability. Consent systems make domain name changes much more painful. > >> 2. If a consent token does degenerate to a password, then two >> problems occur. One, it can be sold along with your email address, >> just as email addresses are sold now. You've basically made it >> simple for someone to transfer your consent. the only way around >> that is to tie a consent token to the sender, which means complicated >> software, and a knowledge of what addresses will be used to contact >> you. (Again, I think people working on this should focus first on a >> URL scheme for whitelisting. E.g. >> whitelist:some-piece-of-information-identifying-senders.) > > PGP (and GPG) already exist, and have been in use long enough that >submarine-patents are unlikely (never say "never"). Front-ends for >signing exist in Windows, even. No need to re-invent the wheel. You've lost me. What does this have to do with consent token's not degenerating to passwords, or with URL schemes for whitelisting? -- 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 Jul 9 01:51:17 2003 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 BAA22963 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 01:51:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a7qC-00083x-Uy for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 01:50:49 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h695o85f030990 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 01:50:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a7qC-00083l-Rk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 01:50:08 -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 BAA22948; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 01:48:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a7oy-0003kl-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 01:48:52 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a7oy-0003kh-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 01:48:52 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a7oA-0007wn-13; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 01:48:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a7ls-0007uD-N2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 01:47:11 -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 BAA22910 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 01:45:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a7lp-0003jt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 01:45:37 -0400 Received: from 000-232-148.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.145.247] helo=68.27.145.247) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a7lm-0003jg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 01:45:35 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030709013243.00b9d978@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Barry Shein , ASRG From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 1. Inventory of Problems (was RE: [Asrg] 2. - Spam Characterization - Possible Measurements) Cc: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine , Paul Judge , Vern Paxson Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 09 Jul 2003 01:32:45 -0400 At 03:31 PM 7/8/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: >On July 8, 2003 at 06:00 paul.judge@ciphertrust.com (Paul Judge) wrote: >.... > > believe that the unauthorized use of resources (for sending messages > as well > > as those of the recipients) are grounds for that statement. Additionally, > > the potential disruption in availability is another reason for such a > view. > > > > While one path is to focus on the 'security' of the hijacked computers, I > > think that we have learned over the years that they will continue to find > > new means of injecting their messages into the system (relays, dialups, > > hijacked machines, proxies, webforms, free mail services, etc.). > >I think if MS insists on continuing to produce such trivially hijacked >OS's and no general means is installed to counter-act that problem >(e.g., monitoring for virus-like behavior with automatic slowdown or >shutoff, or fixing the OS) then yes the problem is hopeless. > >But thus far I can't even get much recognition (particularly outside >of a few people on this list) that this sort of thing, the hijacking >and amplification, is the real problem, and it's not analogous to >sticking up a "No Solictors, Please" sign but rather more like the >creep with the loudspeaker or someone breaking into cable or satellite >signals. >........ This problem is listed in the inventory document as follows: Exploitation of weak systems - exploit open smtp relay - exploit insecure web services (cgi formmail) - exploit open proxies (HTTP CONNECT, HTTP) The underlying problems with spam both with SMTP, and with hijacked computers, stem from the fact that the network trusts its users. This "trust" assumption is inherent throughout the Net and its protocols. That allows hijacked computers to spew spam and worms with impunity until a human administrator is notified and shuts down or blocks the machine. This "trust" issue is not going to go away, and its not something that can be taken out of the Net overnight. The way we look at the solutions is what matters. The charter looks at possible solutions from the point of "consent" - addressing the issue from the "edges" of the network by giving the "edges" some control over incoming email. Barry and Eric Brunner are addressing the issue at the "core" of the network. Once again the "Technical Considerations" document (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt) is relevant here: "A key construct to examination of adoption and benefit is "core-vs-edge". Generally, adoption at the edge of a system is easier and quicker than adoption in the core. If a mechanism affects the core (infrastructure) then it usually must be adopted by most or all of the infrastructure before it provides meaningful utility. In something the scale of the Internet, it can take decades to reach that level of adoption, if it ever does." If the problem is in fact looked at as a matter of security cause by inherent trust of the network users by the network itself, then this issue should be addressed together with general security issues such as worms and viruses. A hijacked computer spewing spam is not different from one causing DDOS attacks, or one spreading worms. This is something that must be addressed on the infrastructure level of the Internet itself. The most that "edge" users can do is to use various tracking systems as a SOURCE TRACKING COMPONENT of the consent model feeding data into a consent system. The overall security problem is something that is a general Internet issue, not specific to spam. Therefore, we need to find out if any of the existing IETF WGs and IRTF RGs are looking into this issue and provide coordination with them on this topic. However, we cannot address solutions for this network-wide security issue since our work area is limited to spam. However what we can do is: 1. Mention the security problem in documentation. 2. Coordinate with other WGs and RGs on the topic. 3. Pass along any security proposals to other WGs and RGs where they can be evaluated as well. This is something the IRTF chair can advise on. However, I do not see our group can address the security problems of spam without looking at the wider issue Internet security. Additionally, I think that perhaps properly stating what the spam problem is and what it is caused by, would greatly help. For starters perhaps this issue should reformulated as a general security issue not specific to spam. Also, we need the inventory document to be updated with the newest contributions from the group and perhaps a volunteer to edit it. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 9 02:16:18 2003 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 CAA06093 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 02:16:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a8F3-0003Ta-FU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:15:50 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h696FnPU013330 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 02:15:49 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a8F2-0003Sr-9i for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:15:48 -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 CAA05657; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 02:15:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a8Ex-0003t1-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:15:44 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a8Ex-0003ss-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:15:43 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a8EI-00036L-Eu; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:15:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a8DN-0002zp-RD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:14:06 -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 CAA04972 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 02:14:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a8DK-0003s7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:14:02 -0400 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a8DJ-0003rq-01 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:14:01 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:12:20 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 02:12:31 -0400 Message-ID: <01C345BF.8DE4D480.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Paul Judge'" , "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Cc: "'Brand@responsible.com'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - document 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, 9 Jul 2003 02:09:28 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have yet to incorporate new comments, other that those previously discussed. I will work on a revised posting. -e On Monday, July 07, 2003 6:59 PM, Paul Judge [SMTP:paul.judge@ciphertrust.com] wrote: > Yes, Eric Williams and Russell Brand were working diligently on the > document. The last version sent to the list can be found here: > https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05084.html > > There was little feedback to the document on the list. > > Eric and Russell: is there a new version that you want to send out soon or > should interested folks provide feedback on the version above? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 6:51 PM > > To: asrg@ietf.org > > Cc: Eric D. Williams > > Subject: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - document > > > > > > Is there somebody in the group working on the requirements > > document currently? > > > > 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 Wed Jul 9 02:16:20 2003 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 CAA06150 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 02:16:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a8F7-0003U5-5j for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:15:53 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h696Fr2q013386 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 02:15:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a8F7-0003Tp-0S for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:15:53 -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 CAA05656; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 02:15:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a8Ex-0003sv-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:15:44 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a8Ew-0003sq-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:15:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a8EI-00037B-W2; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:15:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a8DO-0002zy-0M for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:14:06 -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 CAA04975 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 02:14:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a8DK-0003sC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:14:02 -0400 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a8DJ-0003rq-02 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:14:01 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:12:22 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 02:12:34 -0400 Message-ID: <01C345BF.8F4CF000.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Paul Judge , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Cc: "'Brand@responsible.com'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - document 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, 9 Jul 2003 02:10:35 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit That is certainly a prerequisite and conformance has been pursued. -e On Monday, July 07, 2003 7:21 PM, Yakov Shafranovich [SMTP:research@solidmatrix.com] wrote: > As I mentioned in a separate thread, it is important this requirements > document, the "Technical Considerations" document written by Dave Crocker > and co., and the consent model document all fit together. > > At 06:59 PM 7/7/2003 -0400, Paul Judge wrote: > > >Yes, Eric Williams and Russell Brand were working diligently on the > >document. The last version sent to the list can be found here: > >https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05084.html > > > >There was little feedback to the document on the list. > > > >Eric and Russell: is there a new version that you want to send out soon or > >should interested folks provide feedback on the version above? > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > > > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 6:51 PM > > > To: asrg@ietf.org > > > Cc: Eric D. Williams > > > Subject: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - document > > > > > > > > > Is there somebody in the group working on the requirements > > > document currently? > > > > > > Yakov > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 9 02:35:15 2003 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 CAA20059 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 02:35:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a8XQ-0005GY-0X for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:34:48 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h696YlIE020236 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 02:34:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a8XP-0005GI-6A for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:34:47 -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 CAA20008; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 02:34:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a8XL-00042E-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:34:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a8XK-00042B-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:34:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a8Wf-00058x-Sq; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:34:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a8WF-00058U-4Y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:33:35 -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 CAA19969 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 02:33:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a8WB-00041X-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:33:31 -0400 Received: from 000-232-148.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.145.247] helo=68.27.145.247) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a8W9-00041U-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:33:30 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030709023235.00bbcbd8@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 Subject: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Based on Digital Certificates Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 09 Jul 2003 02:32:36 -0400 I read over RFC 2538 which specifies a way for digital certificates to be stored in the DNS system. The RFC seems to support both X.509 and PGP certs. Could the method defined in that RFC be used to verify a sender's identity by storing his certificate in the DNS for the originating domain? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 9 03:05:53 2003 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 CAA06083 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 02:16:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a8F3-0003Tb-Fk for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:15:50 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h696Fnpb013331 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 02:15:49 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a8F2-0003Sq-6Z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:15:48 -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 CAA05655; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 02:15:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a8Ex-0003sy-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:15:44 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a8Ex-0003sr-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:15:43 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a8EH-000369-Nw; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:15:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a8DN-0002zo-Pm for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:14:05 -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 CAA04969 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 02:14:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a8DJ-0003s4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:14:01 -0400 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a8DJ-0003rq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:14:01 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:12:17 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 02:12:29 -0400 Message-ID: <01C345BF.8C88C6F0.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - document 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, 9 Jul 2003 02:08:30 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am still here, just verrry busy. -e On Monday, July 07, 2003 6:51 PM, Yakov Shafranovich [SMTP:research@solidmatrix.com] wrote: > Is there somebody in the group working on the requirements document currently? > > > 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 Wed Jul 9 04:48:29 2003 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 EAA24327 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 04:48:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aAcL-0000XJ-R6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 04:48:02 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h698m1h6002054 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 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 19aAcL-0000X2-Fu for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 04:48:01 -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 EAA24314; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 04:47:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aAcI-0005A8-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 04:47:58 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aAcH-0005A5-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 04:47:57 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aAbO-0000Iq-LA; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 04:47:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aAaX-0000H1-IB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 04:46:09 -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 EAA24208 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 04:46:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aAaU-00058y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 04:46:06 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aAaT-00058v-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 04:46:06 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19aAaU-0005F4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 09:46:06 +0100 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" 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: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 09:46:06 +0100 > "Jon Kyme" wrote: > > You mean not accepting connections from some host drives them to > > hammer on your firewall? > > > Yes. It increases the number of TCP SYN packets by a factor of 10 > or more. > > Accepting all connections increases the total traffic, but the > number of SYN packets drops dramatically. > But I don't want to increase the total traffic, surely? > > I think that this is a truly exceptional situation. > > I've seen it, as have a number of other people with spamtraps. > I believe you. That doesn't make it not exceptional (i.e. normal). A spamtrap is a rather particular case. All messages are accepted - all are successfully delivered ("success" and "deliver" have very particular meanings in this context). No DSN are issued. No problem. I think it's probably right to mention the spamtrap case in any document dealing with filtering in SMTP (such as the one I'm *still* writing). Thanks for bringing it up. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 9 06:58:51 2003 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 GAA27289 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 06:58:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aCeX-0002Oh-Q5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 06:58:25 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h69AwP05009209 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 06:58:25 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aCeX-0002OS-Ln for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 06:58:25 -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 GAA27180; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 06:58:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aCeT-0005sd-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 06:58:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aCeS-0005sa-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 06:58:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aCe9-0002CU-Lp; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 06:58:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aBkE-0004oN-5z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 06:00:14 -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 GAA26013 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 06:00:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aBkA-0005bm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 06:00:10 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aBk9-0005bj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 06:00:10 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19aBk3-0007XA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:00:03 +0100 In-Reply-To: <16139.9300.948576.792273@world.std.com> Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" 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: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:00:03 +0100 > > On July 8, 2003 at 20:23 jrk@merseymail.com (Jon Kyme) wrote: > > You mean not accepting connections from some host drives them to > > hammer on your firewall? > > I think that this is a truly exceptional situation. > > > The term of art is "requeue & retry", which would be the standard > behavior of every MTA I've ever worked with upon connection failure. > I'm not familiar with the details of retry handling of any MTA except exim, which manages retries per domain (or per target host). I gather from what you say that the usual behaviour (for most MTA that bother you) is per message. > Put 10,000 spam msgs headed for your host on some server and even 30 > minute retry times don't help much, they get to the end of the list > and they're ready to start again with the first one which failed. > > For which exceptions > > should clearly be made. I'm surprised that you manage to conserve > resource > > by accepting these connections and blackholing the messages. > So what sort of bandwidth saving do you make by doing this? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 9 11:25:03 2003 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 LAA05667 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:25:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aGo7-0004ra-Me for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:24:36 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h69FOZU9018688 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:24:35 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aGo7-0004rL-IS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:24:35 -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 LAA05596; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:24:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aGnZ-0004fF-9U; Wed, 09 Jul 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 19aGn6-0004eC-PD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:23:32 -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 LAA05559 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:23:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aGn5-0007Vt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:23:31 -0400 Received: from mail1.nber.org ([207.113.108.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aGn4-0007VZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:23:30 -0400 Received: from mail1 (root@localhost) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id h69FRAWl022262 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:27:10 -0400 Received: from nber1.nber.org (nber1.nber.org [207.113.108.252]) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h69FR9cD022230; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:27:09 -0400 From: Daniel Feenberg To: Art Pollard cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Forged Paths... In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030708190335.04599008@mail.1s.com> 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, 9 Jul 2003 11:23:22 -0400 (EDT) On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Art Pollard wrote: > > One of the big issues when it comes to spam is tracing where the message > has originated from. Of course, this is complicated when people forge > headers to try to obfuscate the origin of the e-mail. > > What I propose is this: > > During each jump on the path that the e-mail takes to arrive to the sender, > each interim mail server digitally signs the path. > Can I ask you to elaborate on how this is usefull? Presumably the spammer doesn't sign the path, or at least his signature isn't usefull. If he uses an open relay that does sign the path, I can trace back only as far as the open relay, which I can already do using the connection address. Is the idea that a receiving MTA might discriminate among messages from an open relay, depending upon the sources of the message? That is, an MTA might accept messages from an open relay if the source was signed by a legitimate mailer? Is that an important capability? Daniel Feenberg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 9 11:28:35 2003 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 LAA05867 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:28:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aGrX-0005IQ-93 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:28:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h69FS7KX020354 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:28:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aGrX-0005ID-5x for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:28:07 -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 LAA05840; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:28:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aGcx-0000vW-2B; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:13:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aDTO-0007rk-KG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 07:50:58 -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 HAA28223 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 07:50:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aDTN-0006AN-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 07:50:57 -0400 Received: from mxsmta01.inithost.com ([209.235.30.103] helo=mxsmta01.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aDTN-0006AK-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 07:50:57 -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 <20030709115248.KBB6624.mxsmta01.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 07:52:48 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0C01A1.6010104@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: Kee Hinckley CC: Selby Hatch , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nothing will stop spam??? References: <3F03E8F5.5040107@azza.com> <3F04C5F6.6030103@azza.com> <3F0A3714.2070108@azza.com> 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: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 07:50:57 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There are really two ways to handle this it seems. First is the notion of "consent" token that travels with the message; this is the key that unlocks the door on the receipient's email system. The second is the idea of a list kept at the receipient's email system. The consent token traveling with the email seems to be somewhat problematic. It would have to prevent middlemen attacks and for that to happen the token would need to encode the source of the email message. I believe that is a problem. For instance I have two email clients with two different email addresses - one being the company I work at and the other being my personal account. Now if the token includes the originating address I would have to have two different tokens. I would think we would want a single token regardless of where I am and whatever address I use and that would make a lot of work. But this single token would make it susceptible to middleman attacks. In the receiver side screening mechanism, the second idea, I keep track of addresses that I am willing to accept. As noted earlier very little mail is sent through multiple MTA's (though I can tell you of one case that it will happen!). This is patently more simple. I both cases - the token and screening - I need to keep something to note who to allow through. But in the former instance the sender needs to do something as well. Seems like more work. Am I missing something here? Peace, Chuck Wegrzyn Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 9:14 PM -0600 7/7/03, Selby Hatch wrote: > >> I view the consent token as a separate entity from the email address. >> The consent token would be inserted from some source (address book, >> keyboard, token repository, etc.) into a header by the MUA > > > That's in the case of my sending email to someone else. I'm trying to > figure out how a separate consent token fits into the case of my > subscribing to this mailing list (for instance). > >> Yes, unfortunately, unless you have a private domain, changing email >> addresses requires notifying senders. But, it should not require >> giving out new consent tokens. The consent framework should be such > > > Again, recipient vs. sender issue. I should be fine receiving from > people I've agreed to receive from. However what is the process for > updating *their* consent to receive from *me*? And how does it work > if I don't get the opportunity to notify them until *after* the > change. (E.g. just got laid off.) > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 9 11:32:59 2003 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 LAA06109 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:32:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aGvl-0005gy-W6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:32:32 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h69FWTOX021876 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:32:29 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aGvl-0005gl-TJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:32:29 -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 LAA06093; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:32:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aGcx-0000vh-NV; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:13:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aDa6-0008SB-Ub for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 07:57:54 -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 HAA28280 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 07:57:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aDa5-0006BN-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 07:57:53 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aDa4-0006BK-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 07:57:52 -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 <20030709115942.BVDS28645.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com> for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 07:59:42 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0C033E.6080205@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 CC: Asrg@ietf.org References: <3F03E8F5.5040107@azza.com> <3F04C5F6.6030103@azza.com> <3F0A3714.2070108@azza.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id HAA28282 Subject: [Asrg] Article from WinXPnews 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: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 07:57:50 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I thought you might all enjoy this article written in WinXPnews (please=20 no Microsoft rants)... *ISP Spam Filtering Services: Blessing or Curse?* Over the last few weeks, several readers have written about their ISPs'=20 spam filtering services =96 usually with complaints. On more than one=20 occasion, we've heard that the ISP's software is preventing users from=20 receiving mail they want to get (including the WinXPnews), along with=20 the spam they don't want. In response to consumer complaints about the=20 deluge of spam they get, more and more ISPs are getting into the act of=20 installing spam filters at the server level, but some are implementing=20 this feature more effectively than others. The number of "false=20 positives" varies a lot, depending on the software that your ISP uses=20 and how they have it configured. The primary complaint from our readers is that they want more control=20 over the filtering for their own accounts, and easier interfaces for=20 reviewing and deleting the suspected spam that's been caught by the=20 filters. Owen in California wrote that, using Earthlink's spam blocker=20 tool, it took 15 minutes to delete 100 messages. At that rate, I would=20 have to spend a couple of hours a day deleting spam. The best filtering programs not only allow you to filter by keywords=20 (both in the subject line and the body of the message), but also allow=20 you to set both blacklists (addresses and/or domains that should always=20 be blocked) and whitelists (addresses and/or domains that should never=20 be blocked, even if the message content triggers other spam filters).=20 The latter is a big help in preventing messages from important people=20 from being "lost" due to the spam filters. Other options, such as a=20 choice to block all external graphics or block HTML email altogether,=20 are also handy. How do you feel about ISP spam blocking? Does your provider do a good=20 job with this, use filtering software that drives you nuts, or just let=20 everything through? Do you think spam filtering should be done at the=20 ISP level or would you prefer to control it at the user level? Let us=20 know what you think, at feedback@winxpnews.com=20 . _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 9 11:45:37 2003 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 LAA06649 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:45:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aH81-0006XB-Bk for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:45:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h69Fj9jU025113 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:45:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aH81-0006Wy-7O for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:45:09 -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 LAA06637; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:45:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aH80-0007hl-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:45:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aH7z-0007hi-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:45:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aH7s-0006Uo-Vm; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:45:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aH7V-0006RH-I5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:44:37 -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 LAA06608 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:44:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aH7U-0007hU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:44:36 -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 19aH7T-0007hL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:44:35 -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 19aDCU-0000zd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 07:33:30 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 09 Jul 2003 09:46:06 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: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 07:33:30 -0400 "Jon Kyme" wrote: > A spamtrap is a rather particular case. All messages are accepted - all > are successfully delivered ("success" and "deliver" have very particular > meanings in this context). No DSN are issued. No problem. You're missing a key point: The spamtrap is usually a spamtrap ONLY because it gets so much spam that it's useless as a normal domain. i.e. It was getting massively attacked by spam, which is *why* it was made a spamtrap. It's not the case that it became a spamtrap, and *then* started receiveing large amounts of spam. That would imply that the spammers know it's a spamtrap, and increase their messages to it... which is not realistic. > I think it's probably right to mention the spamtrap case in any document > dealing with filtering in SMTP (such as the one I'm *still* writing). It's also a problem with IP firewall whitelists. If the MX for a domain is publicly advertised, but the MTA is behind a firewall with a whitelist, then the firewall will get whacks of TCP SYNs from spammers. And the rate at which the SYNs arrive will drop, once the firewall rules are removed. In other words, any attempt to protect yourself from spam will result in the spammers attacking you even more, in the hope that *something* will get past your filters. This increase in spam volume means that the filters become less effective... Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 9 12:00:35 2003 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 MAA07343 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:00:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aHMV-0007Vl-O5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:00:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h69G07xC028867 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:00:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aHMV-0007VW-Ir for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:00:07 -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 MAA07321; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:00:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aHMU-00004s-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:00:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aHMT-00004p-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:00:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aHMQ-0007S0-4Q; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:00:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aHLb-0007Qb-It for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:59:11 -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 LAA07262 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:59:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aHLa-00003T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:59:10 -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 19aHLZ-00003P-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:59:09 -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 19aDQc-00011B-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 07:48:06 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Article from WinXPnews on SPAM... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 09 Jul 2003 07:57:50 EDT." <3F0C033E.6080205@garbagedump.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: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 07:48:06 -0400 "C. Wegrzyn" wrote: > *ISP Spam Filtering Services: Blessing or Curse?* > > Over the last few weeks, several readers have written about their ISPs' > spam filtering services =96 usually with complaints. On more than one > occasion, we've heard that the ISP's software is preventing users from > receiving mail they want to get So they don't implement the consent of the recipient. That's bad. One more thing to add to a 'recommended practices' document, in a "SHOULD NOT" section, along with outbound port 25 blocking. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 9 12:07:51 2003 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 MAA07849 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:07:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aHTQ-0000Q6-0t for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:07:24 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h69G7FBx001602 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:07:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aGk8-00040K-KU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:20:28 -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 LAA05438; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:19:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aGij-0003Z0-8O; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:19:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aGhg-0003G2-Vn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:17:57 -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 LAA05295 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:17:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aGhB-0007QG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:17:25 -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 19aGh4-0007Pg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:17:20 -0400 Received: from rsbx.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.rsbx.net (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA27826 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:16:54 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0C31E6.FBF70A58@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] 6. Solutions - Based on Digital Certificates References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030709023235.00bbcbd8@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: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:16:54 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > I read over RFC 2538 which specifies a way for digital certificates to be > stored in the DNS system. The RFC seems to support both X.509 and PGP > certs. Could the method defined in that RFC be used to verify a sender's > identity by storing his certificate in the DNS for the originating domain? Unfortunately, the DNS based CERT storage system proposed in RFC2538 is not efficient for lookups if the type, key tag, or algorithm fields are used as part of the lookup. That is because those fields are in the data returned for a lookup, not the (DNS name) lookup key. So if John Q Public has several CERTs, anyone needing a particular one will need to retrieve them all to find the one with the correct type, key tag, and/or algorithm fields. The problem can be overcome by encoding the CERT selection information as sub-domain labels to the FQDN for John Q Public. DRIP does something like this to check for designation records for SMTP transactions. See http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-brand-drip-00.txt Raymond S Brand _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 9 12:08:38 2003 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 MAA07881 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:08:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aHUI-0000lq-JY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:08:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h69G8AZh002956 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:08:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aHUI-0000lb-El for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:08:10 -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 MAA07868; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:08:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aHUG-0000Bm-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:08:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aHUG-0000Bj-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:08:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aHUA-0000fK-1A; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:08:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aHTi-0000VZ-0i for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:07:34 -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 MAA07836 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:07:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aHTg-0000BR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:07:32 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aHTf-0000BK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:07:32 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19aHTb-0006Yg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:07:27 +0100 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" 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: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:07:27 +0100 > It's also a problem with IP firewall whitelists. If the MX for a > domain is publicly advertised, but the MTA is behind a firewall with a > whitelist, then the firewall will get whacks of TCP SYNs from > spammers. And the rate at which the SYNs arrive will drop, once the > firewall rules are removed. > > In other words, any attempt to protect yourself from spam will > result in the spammers attacking you even more, in the hope that > *something* will get past your filters. This increase in spam volume > means that the filters become less effective... > I'm still surprised that you manage to conserve much in the way of resources by accepting these connections and blackholing the messages. What happens if the messages are rejected hard during the transaction - are they still retried? I'm sure I remember postings about this in the early days of the list but I can't find the numbers. What do the figures look like? If you don't mind me asking. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 9 12:46:08 2003 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 MAA09348 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:46:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aI4b-000450-Al for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:45:41 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h69GjfCP015679 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:45:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aI4b-00044o-6k for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:45:41 -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 MAA09333; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:45:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aI4Z-0000a1-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:45:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aI4Y-0000Zy-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:45:38 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aI3x-00042a-In; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:45:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aI39-00041K-8c for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:44:11 -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 MAA09283 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:44:07 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aI37-0000ZP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:44:09 -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 19aI36-0000ZM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:44:08 -0400 Received: (cpmta 14782 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2003 09:44:06 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.71) with SMTP; 9 Jul 2003 09:44:06 -0700 X-Sent: 9 Jul 2003 16:44:06 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:43:31 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:12:45 -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 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: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:12:45 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Again, recipient vs. sender issue. I should be fine receiving from people I've agreed to receive from. However what is the process for updating *their* consent to receive from *me*? And how does it work if I don't get the opportunity to notify them until *after* the change. (E.g. just got laid off.) It's just another case of the "unexpected mail" case. Using my approach, you send the change of address notification in plain ASCII text. Actually, if you're playing nicely and sending plain ASCII text all the time to begin with, there's simply no issue because you can get your E-mails through REGARDLESS. (This is presuming, of course, that your messages don't look so much like spam that they trigger the backup content 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 "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 Jul 9 12:59:33 2003 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 MAA09981 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:59:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aIHZ-0004c8-OY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:59:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h69Gx5Tx017734 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:59:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aIHZ-0004bx-Ko for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:59:05 -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 MAA09968; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:59:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aIHX-0000jm-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:59:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aIHW-0000jh-00; Wed, 09 Jul 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 19aIHV-0004Ya-VM; Wed, 09 Jul 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 19aIHP-0004Xo-N3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:58:55 -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 MAA09957 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:58:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aIHN-0000jV-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:58:53 -0400 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org ([212.17.35.15]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aIHM-0000jM-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:58:52 -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 h69GvhB12702; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:57:44 +0100 Received: by jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id C885D16F10; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:58:37 +0100 (IST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC864F87B; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 09:58:37 -0700 (PDT) To: "C. Wegrzyn" Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Article from WinXPnews on SPAM... In-Reply-To: Message from "C. Wegrzyn" of "Wed, 09 Jul 2003 07:57:50 EDT." <3F0C033E.6080205@garbagedump.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: <20030709165837.C885D16F10@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, 09 Jul 2003 09:58:32 -0700 C. Wegrzyn writes: > The best filtering programs not only allow you to filter by keywords > (both in the subject line and the body of the message), but also allow > you to set both blacklists (addresses and/or domains that should always > be blocked) and whitelists (addresses and/or domains that should never > be blocked, even if the message content triggers other spam filters). > The latter is a big help in preventing messages from important people > from being "lost" due to the spam filters. Other options, such as a > choice to block all external graphics or block HTML email altogether, > are also handy. Yeah, we (SpamAssassin) have been saying this for ages. Unfortunately I get several mails a day from end-users who have had SpamAssassin installed by their ISP or web hosting company, with - filtering turned on for all accounts by default - no notification that it was installed - no configuration interface or way to perform white/blacklisting - only interface for users is via a call to tech support! That results in pain for everyone involved -- except for the ISP, I suppose. A bad situation. We strongly advise against this in all our doco, but it still happens regularly... >:( --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 9 12:59:37 2003 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 MAA09997 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:59:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aIHe-0004ep-Ng for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:59:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h69GxAoI017899 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 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 19aIHe-0004ec-Ku for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 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 MAA09969; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:59:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aIHX-0000jo-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:59:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aIHW-0000ji-00; Wed, 09 Jul 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 19aIHV-0004Y3-Fm; Wed, 09 Jul 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 19aIGf-0004XV-Nv for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:58:09 -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 MAA09924 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:58:05 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aIGd-0000j1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:58:07 -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 19aIGd-0000iy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:58:07 -0400 Received: (cpmta 29346 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2003 09:57:59 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.64) with SMTP; 9 Jul 2003 09:57:59 -0700 X-Sent: 9 Jul 2003 16:57:59 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:56:06 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:25:19 -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] Weak Web services Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 09 Jul 2003 12:25:19 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Exploitation of weak systems - exploit open smtp relay - exploit insecure web services (cgi formmail) - exploit open proxies (HTTP CONNECT, HTTP) I actually ran into a case some years back where an especially pernicious type was [ab]using a Web CGI formmail script belonging to an [otherwise] innocent company. Turns out the company's site was hosted on a "hosting farm" run by a very large hosting company, who made the insecure Perl script available and suggested its use by all of their customers. (Their customers were usually other Web 'hosting' companies and site designers etc) I called the large hosting company, and couldn't get them concerned about the issue... they just didn't seem motivated to clean up their act. Not ready to give up quite that quickly, I did a google search and found between five and six hundred company Web sites that appeared to use that same insecure script. I formulated an E-mail which I sent to *each* of those companies, alerting them to the weakness of the script used on their Web site (and pointing out that its abuse resulted in possibly HIGHLY objectionable material being sent out on THEIR CORPORATE "STATIONERY") and mentioned that their Web site hosting company was moreover very aware of the problem and didn't seem to want to fix it. That tack evidently got the attention of the hosting company, and the problem was fixed within a week or two, if I recall correctly. :-) I have no doubt that other weakly secured formmail CGI scripts still exist, but rather than doing a "run along behind" approach trying to get them closed one-at-a-time (leaving the spammers and abusers to continue working down their list of vulnerable systems), I think it makes more sense to take the proactive approach and try to get ALL of the vulnerable systems cleaned up BEFORE they are abused. 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 Jul 9 13:07:33 2003 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 NAA10485 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:07:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aIPK-0005KR-TD for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:07:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h69H76mo020477 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:07:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aIPK-0005KC-Ok for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:07:06 -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 NAA10451; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:07:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aIPI-0000rr-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:07:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aIPI-0000ro-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:07:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aIPF-0005HN-Q5; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:07:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aION-0005A6-Bs for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:06:07 -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 NAA10385 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:06:03 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aIOL-0000pw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:06:05 -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 19aIOK-0000pt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:06:04 -0400 Received: (cpmta 9423 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2003 10:06:00 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.72) with SMTP; 9 Jul 2003 10:06:00 -0700 X-Sent: 9 Jul 2003 17:06:00 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:04:42 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:33:56 -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 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: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:33:56 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > The consent token traveling with the email seems to be somewhat problematic. It would have to prevent middlemen attacks and for that to happen the token would need to encode the source of the email message. I believe that is a problem. For instance I have two email clients with two different email addresses - one being the company I work at and the other being my personal account. Now if the token includes the originating address I would have to have two different tokens. I would think we would want a single token regardless of where I am and whatever address I use and that would make a lot of work. But this single token would make it susceptible to middleman attacks. I think there are a *lot* of problems with the consent token approach, including the fact that you may wish to revoke an already-issued consent token. That revocation is VERY unlikely to be system-wide; you're only likely to revoke its use by some selected rogue user. Since you CANNOT accept any consent token at face value, but basically MUST check to see if it's still valid and accepted (FROM the originating user), I don't really see that the token adds much of anything that you can't get from the originating user's E-mail address (which thus works FINE as the token all by itself, AND eliminates the need for the sending end to do ANYTHING different from what they do for anybody else). > In the receiver side screening mechanism, the second idea, I keep track of addresses that I am willing to accept. As noted earlier very little mail is sent through multiple MTA's (though I can tell you of one case that it will happen!). This is patently more simple. I both cases - the token and screening - I need to keep something to note who to allow through. But in the former instance the sender needs to do something as well. Seems like more work. Absolutely. And some senders (large mailing lists for instance) are highly unlikely to want to adapt their behavior to correspond to the unique (and possibly even contradictory) demands of each of possibly hundreds of thousands of subscribers/community members. 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 Jul 9 13:42:07 2003 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 NAA11667 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:42:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aIwl-0007Nd-7M for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:41:39 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h69HfdT2028366 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:41:39 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aIwl-0007NR-4c for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:41:39 -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 NAA11649; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:41:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aIw9-0007GT-H2; Wed, 09 Jul 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 19aIvL-0007FA-2v for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:40:11 -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 NAA11590 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:40:08 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aIvI-0001A6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:40:08 -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 19aIvI-00019z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:40:08 -0400 Received: (cpmta 4018 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2003 10:40:06 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.71) with SMTP; 9 Jul 2003 10:40:06 -0700 X-Sent: 9 Jul 2003 17:40:06 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:38:08 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:07:22 -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] Non-delivery Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 09 Jul 2003 13:07:22 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Since you say the purpose of the framework is to evaluate anti-spam proposals, one of the criteria should be the likely impact on existing usage and interaction between existing users and those who have migrated to consent-based software. Some of that detail will depend on implementation, but some abstract ideas are so fundamentally different from the current system that *any* implementation of them would affect interoperability. > Of course I know there are already many reasons why e-mail may not arrive under the current open system, such as an invalid recipient e-mail address or a lack of disk space at the receiver's incoming mail server. So maybe this issue is less important (to the abstract model) than I first thought. > Anyway, I'd be interested to hear your comments about the issue. I think there are a whole variety of separate issues and cases here. First of all, when first implementing a Permissions List type consent system, the first 2-6 months are probably going to be used setting the permissions appropriately for the mail you 'normally' are receiving (a lot of that will take place within the first 7-20 days or so, but I'd expect it would taper off fairly rapidly after that). During that time, a different default blocking policy probably should apply (perhaps even "block nothing"). After the system is installed and basically familiar, there are a whole variety of issues and considerations, and there may not be any one single 'best' practice. For example, if Aunt Gertrude sends an inhabitual message, one might want to: 1) deliver it but include a warning (appended? separate message?) about the nonconformance? 2) auto-send a reply to Aunt Gertrude advising her that the nonconforming mail has been held awaiting special approval for delivery? 3) hold it pending a decision by the recipient? OTOH, for mail coming from a spammer (i.e. using spammer tricks like obscured content or obscured URLs that are never used in normal E-mail) there may be no point in bouncing or replying to it, even if the from or reply-to address are actually valid. (If nothing else, you really don't want to indicate to them that the E-mail address they sent to was 'good'.) (Actually, if they WERE valid then bouncing the mail back from millions of recipients would have the effect of being a (richly deserved!) DoS upon the spammer...) I wonder if that might be an interesting countermeasure, actually, for spams hawking Web sites? Where if the Web site mentioned in the spam was "unknown" (i.e. not on a "good guys" URL database), then a bot "hit" would be done on the Web site just to scope it out, as part of E-mail checking? Surely the spam-promoted site wouldn't hold up very well under the onslaught of all those bot-generated 'hits'.... the effect would be that of a distributed-DOS attack :-) And for that matter... might it make sense to include the stuff on that Web page as an additional source of material to be considered in the content filtering of the message, perhaps? One downside of such an approach is the potential for particularly nasty "joe jobs", I suppose. But it's still an intriguing thought. :-) Anyhow, I think there are several quite different handlings for incoming messages that trip the 'spam filter' (and/or violate the Permissions List rules). In some cases, you really do just want to T-can the message (familiar and known companies who just insist on spamming you). Sometimes you might want to bounce it; sometimes to hold it pending decision. Or whatever! A good permissions list approach will allow for any of those, I'd think. 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 Jul 9 13:53:07 2003 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 NAA11990 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:53:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aJ7O-00086E-Ur for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:52:39 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h69HqcJQ031128 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:52:38 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aJ7O-00085z-P6 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:52:38 -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 NAA11979; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:52:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aJ7M-0001Gg-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:52:36 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aJ7L-0001Gd-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:52:35 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aJ6n-0007vR-Kt; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:52:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aJ6F-0007pw-AA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:51:27 -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 NAA11947 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:51:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aJ6D-0001GK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:51:25 -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 19aJ6C-0001GH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:51:24 -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 19aFBB-00014J-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 09:40:17 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:07:27 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: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 09:40:17 -0400 "Jon Kyme" wrote: > I'm still surprised that you manage to conserve much in the way > of resources by accepting these connections and blackholing the messages. The number of TCP SYNs go down when there's no firewall whitelist, but the total bandwidth used doesn't change by much. > What happens if the messages are rejected hard during the > transaction - are they still retried? Yes. For some reason, spammers don't appear to be following the SMTP "best practices" documents. > What do the figures look like? If you don't mind me asking. Millions of TCP SYNs per day, with a firewall whitelist. When all connections are accepted & email to non-user accounts silently discarded, 500K+ messages per day. When taken against "real" email to me at the domain, the traffic is more than 99.9% spam. And it's been going up by a factor of at least 2, every year, for about as long as I've had the domain. This is the future of email for everyone. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 9 14:39:58 2003 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 OAA13417 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 14:39:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aJqk-0001r8-HB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 14:39:31 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h69IdUnl007133 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 14:39:30 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aJqk-0001qy-8q for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 14:39:30 -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 OAA13391; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 14:39:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aJqh-0001eK-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 14:39:27 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aJqg-0001eH-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 14:39:26 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aJqH-0001nP-LV; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 14:39:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aJpi-0001n5-Nu for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 14:38:26 -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 OAA13364 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 14:38:23 -0400 (EDT) From: list-asrg@openrbl.org Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aJpg-0001dr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 14:38:24 -0400 Received: from [195.134.143.200] (helo=webmail.serv.ch) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aJpe-0001do-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 14:38:23 -0400 Received: (AUTH: 78f40cda, TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,168bits,DES-CBC3-SHA) by courier.serv.ch with esmtp (courier/0.39) for ; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 20:38:01 +0200 Received: from (list-asrg@openrbl.org) by wireless.lan with esmtp (courier-0.40) for ; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 18:38:00 +0000 Orig-Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 20:38:10 +0200 To: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Article from WinXPnews on SPAM... In-Reply-To: <3F0C033E.6080205@garbagedump.com> References: <3F03E8F5.5040107@azza.com> <3F04C5F6.6030103@azza.com> <3F0A3714.2070108@azza.com> <3F0C033E.6080205@garbagedump.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Orig-Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 18:38:00 +0000 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: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 20:38:01 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On 9. July 2003 07:57 -0400 "C. Wegrzyn" wrote: > I thought you might all enjoy this article written in WinXPnews (please no > Microsoft rants)... > > *ISP Spam Filtering Services: Blessing or Curse?* > > Over the last few weeks, several readers have written about their ISPs' > spam filtering services ? usually with complaints. On more than one > occasion, we've heard that the ISP's software is preventing users from > receiving mail they want to get (including the WinXPnews), along with the > spam they don't want. Sunbelt spammed their winxpnew and w2knews from 2000 to 2002, and have been widely blocklisted for their continued abuse. Their spamvertized 'IHateSpam' is of no use for any clueful user anyway which would never use Outbreak for obvious security reasons. See and Google. Fortunately some people followed the boulder pledge: From: Eric Shanfelt (eric@win2000mag.com) Subject: Re: SPAM: Sunbelt-software spams, "The dog ate my backups" Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email Date: 2000/06/19 Hi all, The Sunbelt spamming issue was brought to my attention last week. Just want you to know that Windows 2000 Magazine and Duke Communications does not endorse spam in any way and, as our privacy policy reflects, we have a strict policy against UCE. We understood the Sunbelt newsletter to be opt-in and sponsored it in good faith. Apparently we were misled. We will not be sponsoring that newsletter again until it can be proven to be 100% opt-in (a hard thing to do). Eric Shanfelt (eric@win2000mag.com) Director of Online Media Windows 2000 Magazine / SQL Server Magazine _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 9 17:04:09 2003 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 RAA22129 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:04:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aM6H-0004YH-PE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:03:42 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h69L3fIC017493 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:03:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aM6H-0004Y4-MO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:03:41 -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 RAA22106; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:03:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aM6F-0003TT-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:03:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aM6E-0003TP-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:03:38 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aM5d-0004Pu-Cv; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:03:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aM4y-0004PE-Qi for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:02:20 -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 RAA22054 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:02:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aM4w-0003T1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:02:18 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aM4u-0003Ss-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:02:17 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19aM4t-0005NP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 22:02:15 +0100 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.7] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 82.69.7.27 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: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 22:02:15 +0100 > "Jon Kyme" wrote: > > I'm still surprised that you manage to conserve much in the way > > of resources by accepting these connections and blackholing the > messages. > > > The number of TCP SYNs go down when there's no firewall whitelist, > but the total bandwidth used doesn't change by much. > Have I got this right? You don't save any bandwidth by accepting and blackholing these messages? > > What happens if the messages are rejected hard during the > > transaction - are they still retried? > > Yes. > > For some reason, spammers don't appear to be following the SMTP > "best practices" documents. I can't imagine what that reason is (apart from stupidity). Again, I'm surprised - I guess that this isn't coming through open (but otherwise normal) relays - It also seems rather costly for the spammer. > > > What do the figures look like? If you don't mind me asking. > > Millions of TCP SYNs per day, with a firewall whitelist. I might be wrong about this but I seem to remember that a TCP/IP packet with no data is about 40 octets? So I can see that sending millions of RST to millions of SYN might add up to about the same bandwidth as accepting hundreds of thousands of spam. > > When all connections are accepted & email to non-user accounts > silently discarded, 500K+ messages per day. When taken against > "real" email to me at the domain, the traffic is more than 99.9% spam. I still can't see what the issue here is. Silently failing this spam doesn't seem to save anything much. > And it's been going up by a factor of at least 2, every year, for > about as long as I've had the domain. This is the future of email for > everyone. > I don't see how that follows, but I can't prove that you're not right. Thanks for bearing with me. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 9 17:23:36 2003 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 RAA22919 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:23:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aMP7-0006ki-8t for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:23:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h69LN98u025950 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:23:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aMP7-0006kT-5c for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:23:09 -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 RAA22903; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:23:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aMP4-0003gv-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:23:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aMP4-0003gs-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:23:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aMOz-0006iV-HC; Wed, 09 Jul 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 19aMOJ-0006hO-EB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:22:19 -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 RAA22857 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:22:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aMOH-0003fd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:22:17 -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 19aMOG-0003fa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:22:16 -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 19aMNN-0001BG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:21:21 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 09 Jul 2003 22:02:15 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: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:21:20 -0400 "Jon Kyme" wrote: > > The number of TCP SYNs go down when there's no firewall whitelist, > > but the total bandwidth used doesn't change by much. > > Have I got this right? You don't save any bandwidth by accepting and > blackholing these messages? That's not what I said. Accepting the connection means 1/10 the TCP SYNs, which means there's that much SMTP traffic which can occur, before the messages start taking more bandwidth than the TCP SYNs. How much data is in each spam message? 2k? 10K? For 100's of 1000's of messages, as opposed to much smaller TCP SYN packets, for millions of packets. The total bandwidth is similar, to an order of magnitude or so. There is no massive savings in spam, by either blocking, or accepting messages. > > For some reason, spammers don't appear to be following the SMTP > > "best practices" documents. > > I can't imagine what that reason is (apart from stupidity). Stupidity, laziness, or malicousness, it's all the same in the end. > I might be wrong about this but I seem to remember that a TCP/IP packet > with no data is about 40 octets? So I can see that sending millions of RST > to millions of SYN might add up to about the same bandwidth as accepting > hundreds of thousands of spam. Yup. > > When all connections are accepted & email to non-user accounts > > silently discarded, 500K+ messages per day. When taken against > > "real" email to me at the domain, the traffic is more than 99.9% spam. > > I still can't see what the issue here is. Silently failing this spam > doesn't seem to save anything much. That was most of my point. Spam is a permanent DDoS attack, and until it's fixed at the source(s), there's little any one recipient can do to stop the flood. > > And it's been going up by a factor of at least 2, every year, for > > about as long as I've had the domain. This is the future of email for > > everyone. > > I don't see how that follows, but I can't prove that you're not right. It follows because that's been my experience over the past number of years. Everyone else's spam loads are going up significantly. The only reason why they don't have my traffic yet is that they started off lower in the spam load. Since everyones spam loads are increasing, the peak loads today will be the average loads in a few months to years. The ONLY way to make that statement untrue is to prevent the spam loads from increasing. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 9 17:26:31 2003 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 RAA23013 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:26:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aMRv-00074R-Hb for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:26:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h69LQ3qu027173 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:26:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aMRv-00074C-DW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:26:03 -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 RAA23000; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:25:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aMRt-0003ie-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:26:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aMRs-0003ib-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:26:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aMRt-000717-Dz; Wed, 09 Jul 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 19aMR7-0006vl-9N for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:25:13 -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 RAA22955 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:25:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aMR4-0003i6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:25:11 -0400 Received: from mnr1.microneil.com ([216.88.36.96]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aMR4-0003hw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:25:10 -0400 Received: by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix, from userid 93) id 2574829C04D; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:24:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MicroNeil.com (mail.microneil.com [216.88.36.161]) by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF6E929C027 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:24:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MNR01 [216.88.36.10] by MicroNeil.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.05) id A7FE95200C2; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:24:14 -0400 From: "Pete McNeil" To: "'ASRG'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through Message-ID: <00b801c34660$713f6290$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 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 In-Reply-To: X-Declude-Spoolname: D87fe0c2.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: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:24:12 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> The number of TCP SYNs go down when there's no firewall whitelist, >> but the total bandwidth used doesn't change by much. >> > >Have I got this right? You don't save any bandwidth by >accepting and blackholing these messages? What about silently breaking the pipe? That is, accept the connection (one packet) then forget about it. The sender's device would have to time out before trying again. I know it's a low-level networking hack, but it might save bandwidth over the other two alternatives. Thoughts? -- at any rate, whatever response can be devise for rejecting abusive connections, the consent policy must support the execution of any rejection method available on the system if consent is denied... _M _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 9 17:48:37 2003 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 RAA24085 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:48:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aMnK-00017t-Gz for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:48:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h69LmAnb004323 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:48:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aMnK-00017e-D1 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:48:10 -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 RAA24074; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:48:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aMnH-00045e-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:48:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aMnH-00045b-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:48:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aMnB-00015W-Hq; Wed, 09 Jul 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 19aMmG-00014J-Ag for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:47:04 -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 RAA24026 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:47:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aMmD-000455-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:47:01 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aMmC-00044p-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:47:00 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (CwM2@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h69LkvDP008859; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:46:58 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA25715; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:46:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16140.36176.209178.815179@world.std.com> To: Art Pollard Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Forged Paths... In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030708190335.04599008@mail.1s.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030708190335.04599008@mail.1s.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, 9 Jul 2003 17:46:56 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On July 8, 2003 at 19:14 pollarda@lextek.com (Art Pollard) wrote: > > One of the big issues when it comes to spam is tracing where the message > has originated from. Of course, this is complicated when people forge > headers to try to obfuscate the origin of the e-mail. What's your motivation for tracing its source? I can think of some, I'm not being testy, just wondering what prompted your suggestion specifically. -- -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 Jul 9 18:05:52 2003 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 SAA24876 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 18:05:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aN41-000238-Ry for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 18:05:26 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h69M5Pri007874 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 18:05:25 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aN41-00022v-P9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 18:05:25 -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 SAA24800; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 18:05:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aN3y-0004DI-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 18:05:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aN3y-0004DF-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 18:05:22 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aN3e-0001u5-8x; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 18:05:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aN3E-0001sU-CQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 18:04:36 -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 SAA24685 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 18:04:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aN3B-0004Cb-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 18:04:33 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aN3A-0004CY-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 18:04:32 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (CwM2@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h69M4MDP014791; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 18:04:22 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA29106; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 18:04:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16140.37217.464211.294193@world.std.com> To: "C. Wegrzyn" Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Article from WinXPnews on SPAM... In-Reply-To: <3F0C033E.6080205@garbagedump.com> References: <3F03E8F5.5040107@azza.com> <3F04C5F6.6030103@azza.com> <3F0A3714.2070108@azza.com> <3F0C033E.6080205@garbagedump.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, 9 Jul 2003 18:04:17 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As an ISP my experience has been that people just want a spam filter which works perfectly and without any effort, or little effort. If it lets spam by, then it sucks. If there are any false positives, then it sucks. If a filter mostly works, then they claim spam isn't enough of a problem to risk false positives (note the paradox.) Yes there are tinkerers who will futz with spamassassin etc but they're a tiny minority. Most of the mail is your usual: I get a lot of spam on this account some of which is offensive. I pay you good money, if you can't keep this out of my account then I'll take my business elsewhere. or Your filter rejected mail which was not spam. I pay you good money, if you can't keep the spam out of my account while ensuring I get all email I want then I'll take my business elsewhere. etc. It's a thankless position to be in. -- -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 Jul 9 18:14:31 2003 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 SAA25970 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 18:14:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aNCP-000350-Ml for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 18:14:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h69ME5vl011832 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 18:14:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aNCP-00034l-Ik for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 18:14:05 -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 SAA25891; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 18:14:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aNCM-0004L2-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 18:14:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aNCL-0004Kz-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 18:14:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aNCL-00031C-DH; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 18:14:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aNBY-0002zV-GX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 18:13:12 -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 SAA25761 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 18:13:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aNBV-0004KF-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 18:13:09 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aNBU-0004KC-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 18:13:08 -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 <20030709221503.KSTH28645.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 18:15:03 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0C937A.3070207@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: Barry Shein CC: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Article from WinXPnews on SPAM... References: <3F03E8F5.5040107@azza.com> <3F04C5F6.6030103@azza.com> <3F0A3714.2070108@azza.com> <3F0C033E.6080205@garbagedump.com> <16140.37217.464211.294193@world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <16140.37217.464211.294193@world.std.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, 09 Jul 2003 18:13:14 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barry I agree. I was one of the cofounders of Destek.net, an ISP in Nashua. Chuck Wegrzyn Barry Shein wrote: >As an ISP my experience has been that people just want a spam filter >which works perfectly and without any effort, or little effort. > >If it lets spam by, then it sucks. > >If there are any false positives, then it sucks. > >If a filter mostly works, then they claim spam isn't enough of a >problem to risk false positives (note the paradox.) > >Yes there are tinkerers who will futz with spamassassin etc but >they're a tiny minority. > >Most of the mail is your usual: > > I get a lot of spam on this account some of which is > offensive. I pay you good money, if you can't keep this > out of my account then I'll take my business elsewhere. > >or > > Your filter rejected mail which was not spam. I pay you good > money, if you can't keep the spam out of my account while > ensuring I get all email I want then I'll take my business > elsewhere. > >etc. > >It's a thankless position to be in. > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 9 19:11:53 2003 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 TAA28372 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 19:11:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aO5w-0007s1-5x for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 19:11:28 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h69NBSc4030247 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 19:11:28 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aO5w-0007rm-16 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 19:11:28 -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 TAA28332; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 19:11:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aO5s-00053y-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 19:11:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aO5s-00053v-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 19:11:24 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aO5W-0007kG-57; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 19:11:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aO4i-0007bX-Dt for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 19:10:12 -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 TAA28258 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 19:10:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aO4f-00051x-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 19:10:09 -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 19aO4d-00051t-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 19:10:07 -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 19aO3k-0001Du-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 19:09:12 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:24:12 EDT." <00b801c34660$713f6290$0a2458d8@MNR01> 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: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 19:09:10 -0400 "Pete McNeil" wrote: > What about silently breaking the pipe? That is, accept the connection > (one packet) then forget about it. The sender's device would have to > time out before trying again. I know it's a low-level networking hack, > but it might save bandwidth over the other two alternatives. Thoughts? It's a thought, but I haven't tried it myself. People have tried similar things with 'teergrube', and it doesn't appear to make enough different to be worthwhile. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 9 19:21:33 2003 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 TAA28631 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 19:21:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aOFG-0008QL-9x for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 19:21:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h69NL6te032375 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 19:21:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aOFG-0008Q6-5j for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 19:21:06 -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 TAA28623; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 19:21:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aOFE-00059G-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 19:21:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aOFD-00059D-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 19:21:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aOFB-0008N0-7j; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 19:21:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aOEE-0008Ii-PT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 19:20:02 -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 TAA28596 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 19:19:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aOED-00058S-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 19:20:01 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aOEC-00058P-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 19:20:00 -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 <20030709232155.LLWA28645.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 19:21:55 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0CA326.9010209@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: Alan DeKok CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through 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: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 19:20:06 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The problem is the cost of opening/closing the connection - that is a pretty heavy penalty. I'd be more like to just route the bits to the great bucket in the sky. Chuck Alan DeKok wrote: >"Pete McNeil" wrote: > > >>What about silently breaking the pipe? That is, accept the connection >>(one packet) then forget about it. The sender's device would have to >>time out before trying again. I know it's a low-level networking hack, >>but it might save bandwidth over the other two alternatives. Thoughts? >> >> > > It's a thought, but I haven't tried it myself. > > People have tried similar things with 'teergrube', and it doesn't >appear to make enough different to be worthwhile. > > Alan DeKok. > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jul 9 20:01:37 2003 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 UAA29865 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:01:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aOs1-0003Zw-9w for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 20:01:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6A019vi013750 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:01:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aOs1-0003Zh-6k for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 20:01:09 -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 UAA29861; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:01:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aOrz-0005Vd-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 20:01:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aOry-0005Va-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 20:01:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aOrs-0003Xo-KE; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 20:01:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aOrj-0003XI-NM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 20:00:51 -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 UAA29848 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:00:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aOrh-0005VW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 20:00:49 -0400 Received: from mnr1.microneil.com ([216.88.36.96]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aOrg-0005VO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 20:00:49 -0400 Received: by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix, from userid 93) id 8F48729C04D; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:00:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MicroNeil.com (mail.microneil.com [216.88.36.161]) by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6114629C027 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:00:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from toshiba-user.microneil.com [63.86.179.204] by MicroNeil.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.05) id AC68B7C00F2; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 19:59:36 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.0.20030709194500.00b894e0@mail.microneil.com> X-Sender: madscientist@mail.microneil.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Pete McNeil Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through In-Reply-To: <3F0CA326.9010209@garbagedump.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Declude-Spoolname: Dac680f2.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: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 19:59:37 -0400 In general, I agree... just tell the router to drop the packets... but it has been said that this leads to an accelerated retry situation... so, to forestall that, have the router send back an acknowledgement packet (rather than an ICMP unreachable) and then forget all about it... That is, if it's from the unwanted, abusive source, replace the unreachable packet with an ack/est. Then be done with it. For the system under attack it's still just one packet. For the attacking system it's an apparently open pipe - except when they try to send, there's no "there" there... but they must time-out before they know that. This, at least, delays the retry and requires very little overhead when compared with a normal rejection. This isn't something I recommend, I think the right way to do it is just drop the packets, but it _may_ be a reasonable response to what has been called a DDoS attack if simply dropping the packets doesn't work (as described). Until DSQP can be deployed so that the border router of the attacker's upstream disconnects them, the receivers will need to have options for mounting a defense. _M At 07:20 PM 7/9/2003 -0400, C. Wegrzyn wrote: >The problem is the cost of opening/closing the connection - that is a >pretty heavy penalty. I'd be more like to just route the bits to the great >bucket in the sky. > >Chuck > >Alan DeKok wrote: > >>"Pete McNeil" wrote: >> >> >>>What about silently breaking the pipe? That is, accept the connection >>>(one packet) then forget about it. The sender's device would have to >>>time out before trying again. I know it's a low-level networking hack, >>>but it might save bandwidth over the other two alternatives. Thoughts? >>> >> >> It's a thought, but I haven't tried it myself. >> >> People have tried similar things with 'teergrube', and it doesn't >>appear to make enough different to be worthwhile. >> >> Alan DeKok. >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 Wed Jul 9 23:29:53 2003 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 XAA03724 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 23:29:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aS7X-0007ON-Qo for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 23:29:26 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6A3TNjs028409 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 23:29:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aS7X-0007O0-NG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 23:29:23 -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 XAA03718; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 23:29:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aS7V-0006Y2-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 23:29:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aS7U-0006Xw-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 23:29:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aS7B-0007Jq-Iy; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 23:29:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aS6x-0007JD-0O for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 23:28:47 -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 XAA03700 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 23:28:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aS6u-0006Xa-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 23:28:44 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aS6u-0006XL-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 23:28:44 -0400 Received: from [63.186.233.89] (account nazgul HELO [63.186.233.77]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2526935 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 23:28:42 -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] [OffTopic] Looking for address to complain to Hotmail Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 9 Jul 2003 13:13:46 -0400 How do I get in touch with them to ask them why they are putting my email in the spam folder? (abuse@ doesn't work, the bounce anything they can't auto-process) -- 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 Jul 9 23:29:53 2003 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 XAA03726 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 23:29:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aS7X-0007O6-NK for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 23:29:26 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6A3TN90028393 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 23:29:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aS7X-0007Ns-IY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 23:29:23 -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 XAA03715; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 23:29:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aS7V-0006Xz-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 23:29:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aS7U-0006Xv-00; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 23:29:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aS7B-0007Ji-76; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 23:29:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aS6w-0007J8-A7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 23:28:46 -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 XAA03695 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 23:28:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aS6u-0006XV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 23:28:44 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aS6t-0006XL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 23:28:43 -0400 Received: from [63.186.233.89] (account nazgul HELO [63.186.233.77]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2526933; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 23:28:35 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030709000619.00bc1828@solidmatrix.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030709000619.00bc1828@solidmatrix.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: 4. Consent Model - Consent Tokens (was Re: [Asrg] Nothing will stop spam???) Cc: Walter Dnes , 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: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:26:06 -0400 At 12:06 AM -0400 7/9/03, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >At 11:36 PM 7/8/2003 -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote: > >>At 1:20 AM -0400 7/7/03, Walter Dnes wrote: >>>On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:14:03AM -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote >>> >>>> 1. Like many systems, this ties in tightly with identity. If I move >>>> to a new ISP (or Comcast gets sold *again*) my email address changes. >>>> How do I manage notifying all of my contacts. >>> >>> If it's important enough, get a personal domain, even if it's only a >>>cheap email+web re-direction service to your physical ISP. You get to >>>keep the address when you change ISP. >> >>I'm not talking about importance. I'm talking about usability. >>Consent systems make domain name changes much more painful. > >What about consent tokens that are not tied into the SENDER's email >address. Things like digital certificates, third party seals (e.g. >Truste, Habeas, etc.)? My apologies in advance if I'm recreating stuff that has been discussed already in your consent documents. I confess to having been mostly focused on the side discussions due to time constraints. I've been thinking mostly of consent as being a matter of my approving particularly senders, and giving them a token to use. But you're right, there are other options, including having a token for the sender, or accepting messages which certain attributes (ranging from Habeas to text/plain). Attribute-based consent clearly doesn't have a problem with a change in domain name or other email address changes. Nor does it require a great deal of software changes on the part of the sender. Digital certificates may or may not have issues. That depends on how they are issued and on what basis you accept them. PGP clearly allows me to change my email address, so that's not an issue. However the S/MIME certs I've seen are bound to a particular address, so they don't help if I change my address. The token-based systems I was considering (where the sender has a token) may or may not be bound to a particular sender. If it is, then address changes are a problem, as is initiating contact off-line or away from your primary MUA. If it isn't, then you haven't really solved the "what if they sell my address" 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 Thu Jul 10 00:37:50 2003 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 AAA04943 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:37:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aTBL-0002Wz-QK for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:37:24 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6A4bNeo009723 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:37:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aTBL-0002Wk-I3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:37:23 -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 AAA04906; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:37:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aTBI-0006ro-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:37:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aTBI-0006rl-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:37:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aTAz-0002LD-CA; Thu, 10 Jul 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 19aTAM-0002KX-Af for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:36:22 -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 AAA04889 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:36:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aTAJ-0006rT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:36:19 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aTAI-0006rQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:36:18 -0400 Received: from [63.186.233.89] (account nazgul HELO [63.186.233.77]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2527051; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:36:09 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Jon Kyme" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through Cc: "ASRG" 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, 10 Jul 2003 00:28:25 -0400 At 10:02 PM +0100 7/9/03, Jon Kyme wrote: > > And it's been going up by a factor of at least 2, every year, for >> about as long as I've had the domain. This is the future of email for >> everyone. >> > >I don't see how that follows, but I can't prove that you're not right. Take a random domain with a random number of addresses. Eventually they start getting spam. Two things happen. First, no matter what your churn, the addresses that got spam will continue to get more--even if they stop existing. Furthermore, over time typos, screwed up alphabet attacks and other factors will cause more and more non-existent addresses to get spam. It always grows. It never shrinks. Although somewhere.com is behind striker on the curve (only 10 million bounces last year), I've also been seeing the factor of two progression for the five or six years I've been tracking 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 Thu Jul 10 00:44:31 2003 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 AAA05117 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:44:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aTHp-0002uW-0B for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:44:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6A4i4CL011182 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:44:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aTHo-0002uH-RR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:44:04 -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 AAA05105; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:44:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aTHm-0006vj-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:44:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aTHl-0006vg-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:44:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aTHl-0002rA-5K; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:44:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aTH8-0002qA-39 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:43:22 -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 AAA05101 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:43:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aTH5-0006vL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:43:19 -0400 Received: from 000-247-590.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.206.195] helo=68.27.206.195) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aTH2-0006vI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:43:18 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030710004252.03746758@solidmatrix.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] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 10 Jul 2003 00:42:53 -0400 Going back to the original question (https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg06391.html): "Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages reach their intended recipients." Am I correct in assuming that the overall opinion of the group seems to be that this statement cannot be part of the requirements? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 10 06:11:55 2003 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 GAA24735 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:11:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aYOg-0000pg-Ma for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:11:31 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6AABUa8003194 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:11:30 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aYOg-0000pR-Ih for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:11:30 -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 GAA24726; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:11:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aYOc-0001Bu-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:11:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aYOc-0001Bq-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:11:26 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aYOC-0000mP-Mq; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:11:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aYNM-0000lf-Cy for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:10:08 -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 GAA24713 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:10:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aYNI-0001Ba-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:10:04 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aYNH-0001BS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:10:04 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19aYN2-0000HG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:09:48 +0100 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" 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: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:09:48 +0100 > > > And it's been going up by a factor of at least 2, every year, for > >> about as long as I've had the domain. This is the future of email for > >> everyone. > >> > > > >I don't see how that follows, but I can't prove that you're not right. > > > Take a random domain with a random number of addresses. Eventually > they start getting spam. Two things happen. First, no matter what > your churn, the addresses that got spam will continue to get > more--even if they stop existing. Furthermore, over time typos, > screwed up alphabet attacks and other factors will cause more and > more non-existent addresses to get spam. It always grows. It never > shrinks. > It certainly seems that way, but all we actually know is that it *has* always *grown*, it *has* never *shrunk*. This is begging the question rather. Are addresses ever removed from spammers lists? Will they ever be? Is there an economic argument for the list producers to "improve the quality" of their lists? Will there ever be? What are the effect on list dynamics of current and future anti-spam deployments? legislation? I guess this would come under "understanding the problem". > Although somewhere.com is behind striker on the curve (only 10 > million bounces last year), I've also been seeing the factor of two > progression for the five or six years I've been tracking it. These are exactly the sort of numbers that someone should be collecting (and aggregating). I'm not denying the truth of anyone's observations. It's just that the predictions are also based on some assumptions about spammer behaviour - which I don't know much about. "I can't prove you're not right" = "not falsifiable right now" (time will tell). Regards, JK -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 10 06:12:28 2003 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 GAA24755 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:12:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aYPD-0000vM-B2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:12:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6AAC3RI003546 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:12:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aYPD-0000v7-7t for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:12:03 -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 GAA24751; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:11:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aYP9-0001CE-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:11:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aYP8-0001CB-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:11:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aYPB-0000tG-9k; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:12:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aYOz-0000pt-So for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:11:49 -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 GAA24732 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:11:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aYOv-0001C8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:11:46 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aYOu-0001Bz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:11:44 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (dyn-64-173.tor.dial.tht.net [134.22.64.173]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1AE96369AB for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:11:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:11:37 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nothing will stop spam??? Message-ID: <20030710061137.A1266@m433> References: <3F03E8F5.5040107@azza.com> <3F04C5F6.6030103@azza.com> <20030707012018.D22087@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 Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 11:36:32PM -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: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:11:37 -0400 On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 11:36:32PM -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote > > PGP (and GPG) already exist, and have been in use long enough that > >submarine-patents are unlikely (never say "never"). Front-ends for > >signing exist in Windows, even. No need to re-invent the wheel. > > You've lost me. What does this have to do with consent token's not > degenerating to passwords, or with URL schemes for whitelisting? The best response is an example. Here goes. In both instances, we'll assume extensions to SMTP. ("EHLO"). Password approach ================= ASRG puts up an XML structure on its signup page. The necessary elements are something like - TOKEN = OOGA_BOOGA Subscribing consists clicking on a URL. This will pop up a dialog in the users's browser that... 1) Submits the the user's email address to the mailing list 2) Saves the XML token data to the user's account on his ISP. Spammer notices that this group is almost exclusively male, and a p****-enlargement ad will be "100% targetted". Spammer sends a spam containing the additional SMTP command... TOKN: OOGA_BOOGA Recipient's ISP checks their database, sees that this client has listed OOGA_BOOGA as a valid consent token, and lets the spam through... oops. Key-based approach (similar to ssh) ================== ASRG puts up an XML structure on its signup page. The necessary elements are something like - TOKEN = blah_blah_blah, where blah_blah_blah is either public key or a URL pointing to a public key (DSA/RSA/whatever). Subscribing consists clicking on a URL. This will pop up a dialog in the users's browser that... 1) Submits the the user's email address to the mailing list 2) Saves the XML token data to the user's account on his ISP. The extended SMTP transaction would include the following... (sender) "TOKN: blah_blah_blah" The recipient's ISP consults its database. If that recipient doesn't have that token in its list, reject email. If recipient has token, the ISP's MTA will - calculate a short random character string - encrypt it using the public key passed or referenced in TOKN: - send back to sender... CHLG: sdfdjkssdkjhdui89348gobbledygook The sender responds by transmitting back in cleartext, a decrypted version of the CHLG: string. If it's successful, the email is accepted. Advantages are similar to ssh - Any sender can generate their own keys for their own mailings; no central signing authority needed (Sorry Verisign) - People can listen in to the exchange with a packet-sniffer, and nobody this side of the NSA will be able to forge the token. The sender requires the private key corresponding to the public key in order to be able to successfully respond to CHLG: - Separate keys for separate lists are possible, for fine-grained control - The same private key can be shared amongst multiple senders if required - Listing/revoking is handled by client on their ISP. - No bounces to innocent 3rd parties. An SMTP-time 5XX reject is issued instead -- 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 Jul 10 06:13:27 2003 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 GAA24876 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:13:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aYQA-0001Ff-MK for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:13:02 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6AAD2aV004805 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:13:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aYQA-0001FQ-Hl for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:13:02 -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 GAA24775; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:12:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aYQ6-0001CX-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:12:58 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aYQ6-0001CU-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:12:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aYQ8-00019F-Rv; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:13:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aYPk-000191-Fh for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:12:36 -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 GAA24771 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:12:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aYPg-0001CO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:12:32 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aYPg-0001CL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:12:32 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (dyn-64-173.tor.dial.tht.net [134.22.64.173]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9C84336A1D for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:12:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:12:33 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through Message-ID: <20030710061233.B1266@m433> References: <3F0CA326.9010209@garbagedump.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: <3F0CA326.9010209@garbagedump.com>; from wegrzyn@garbagedump.com on Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 07:20:06PM -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: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:12:33 -0400 On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 07:20:06PM -0400, C. Wegrzyn wrote > The problem is the cost of opening/closing the connection - that is a > pretty heavy penalty. I'd be more like to just route the bits to the > great bucket in the sky. On the other hand, if your MTA *MERELY PRETENDS* to open a connection (i.e. send back SYN-ACK without actually opening a connection) most spammers will pipeline everything else through without waiting for further responses. They *HAVE* to do this to protect against teergrubes. -- 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 Jul 10 06:14:29 2003 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 GAA25048 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:14:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aYRA-0001O0-NE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:14:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6AAE4ea005318 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:14:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aYRA-0001Ng-J2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:14:04 -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 GAA25034; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:13:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aYR6-0001I5-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:14:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aYR5-0001I2-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:13:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aYR7-0001Jm-MQ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:14:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aYQe-0001Gq-P6 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:13:32 -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 GAA24867 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:13:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aYQa-0001EU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:13:28 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aYQX-0001EH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:13:25 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (dyn-64-173.tor.dial.tht.net [134.22.64.173]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E387136A1D for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:13:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:13:18 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through Message-ID: <20030710061318.C1266@m433> References: <3F0AB06A.2080207@garbagedump.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: <3F0AB06A.2080207@garbagedump.com>; from wegrzyn@garbagedump.com on Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 07:52:10AM -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: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:13:18 -0400 On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 07:52:10AM -0400, C. Wegrzyn wrote > I keep seeing the statement being made that spam should be returned to > the sender. It should be rejected is more appropriate. In the case of mainsleaze spammers-in-pinstripe-suits, the sender is using their own MTA. Most of the time, however, you have pond-scum using compromised home-users' machines. > I might suggest something slightly different: why not have it > delivered and marked as SPAM in the Subject line? In this way at > least I can check to see if it really is spam? I'm afraid that if it > is returned and we have false positives some mail might be returned > that I do want to see. a) Why would I want to wade through 15 megabytes of spam after not reading my mail for a few days ? b) My inbox may be the *TARGET* of 15 megs of spam, but it can only hold 10 megabytes in total... oops. -- 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 Jul 10 06:18:28 2003 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 GAA25264 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:18:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aYV1-0001m6-Ea for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:18:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6AAI3gK006816 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:18:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aYV1-0001lr-7j for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:18:03 -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 GAA25256; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:17:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aYUx-0001LJ-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:17:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aYUw-0001LG-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:17:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aYUy-0001iq-Lg; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:18:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aYUb-0001id-O0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:17:37 -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 GAA25241 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:17:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aYUX-0001Kv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:17:33 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aYUX-0001Ks-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:17:33 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19aYUU-0001lg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:17:30 +0100 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030710004252.03746758@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" 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: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:17:30 +0100 > > Am I correct in assuming that the overall opinion of the group seems to > be > that this statement cannot be part of the requirements? > I think "must ensure" sets the bar way too high. I think that either the sender, intended recipient or (possibly) both, must be able to determine that a message wasn't delivered because of some anti-spam thingy. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 10 07:37:56 2003 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 HAA27346 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:37:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aZjt-0007CO-5x for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:37:29 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6ABbTtR027665 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:37:29 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aZjt-0007C8-1H for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:37:29 -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 HAA27297; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:37:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aZjs-0001tP-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:37:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aZjr-0001tM-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:37:27 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aZjT-00070H-KK; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:37:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aZjN-0006yO-8E for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:36:57 -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 HAA27276 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:36:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aZjM-0001sn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:36:56 -0400 Received: from mxsmta02.inithost.com ([209.235.30.104] helo=mxsmta02.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aZjL-0001sk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:36:55 -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 <20030710113451.SWOE7659.mxsmta02.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:34:51 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0D4FDE.6060500@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: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030710004252.03746758@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030710004252.03746758@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, 10 Jul 2003 07:37:02 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From my perspective I believe that is correct. Chuck Wegrzyn Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Going back to the original question > (https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg06391.html): > > > "Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages > reach their intended recipients." > > Am I correct in assuming that the overall opinion of the group seems > to be that this statement cannot be part of the requirements? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 10 07:41:30 2003 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 HAA27478 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:41:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aZnL-0007qY-6A for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:41:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6ABf3ig030146 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:41:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aZnL-0007py-1P for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:41:03 -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 HAA27466; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:40:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aZnK-0001vp-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:41:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aZnJ-0001vm-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:41:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aZnI-0007lM-Fx; Thu, 10 Jul 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 19aZmw-0007gW-HA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:40:38 -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 HAA27459 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:40:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aZmv-0001vd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:40:37 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aZmv-0001va-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:40:37 -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 <20030710114230.QTGO28645.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:42:30 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0D50B9.10701@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: Jon Kyme CC: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through 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, 10 Jul 2003 07:40:41 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'll say from my own experience that addresses are removed only if they bounce at the MTA level. I tried this by "sniffing" what was going on to my MTA. When I killed an account and watched I noticed that it did slow down though it took over 6 months! I believe the problem is that when the address is on the "CDROM" or list spammers buy/sell you are on it until the list gets updated and sold. But this is merely speculation. Chuck Wegrzyn Jon Kyme wrote: >>> > And it's been going up by a factor of at least 2, every year, for >>> >>> >>>>about as long as I've had the domain. This is the future of email for >>>> everyone. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>I don't see how that follows, but I can't prove that you're not right. >>> >>> >>Take a random domain with a random number of addresses. Eventually >>they start getting spam. Two things happen. First, no matter what >>your churn, the addresses that got spam will continue to get >>more--even if they stop existing. Furthermore, over time typos, >>screwed up alphabet attacks and other factors will cause more and >>more non-existent addresses to get spam. It always grows. It never >>shrinks. >> >> >> > >It certainly seems that way, but all we actually know is that >it *has* always *grown*, it *has* never *shrunk*. > >This is begging the question rather. Are addresses ever removed from >spammers lists? Will they ever be? Is there an economic argument for the >list producers to "improve the quality" of their lists? Will there ever >be? What are the effect on list dynamics of current and future anti-spam >deployments? legislation? > >I guess this would come under "understanding the problem". > > > > >>Although somewhere.com is behind striker on the curve (only 10 >>million bounces last year), I've also been seeing the factor of two >>progression for the five or six years I've been tracking it. >> >> > >These are exactly the sort of numbers that someone should be collecting >(and aggregating). I'm not denying the truth of anyone's observations. It's >just that the predictions are also based on some assumptions about spammer >behaviour - which I don't know much about. > >"I can't prove you're not right" = "not falsifiable right now" (time will >tell). > >Regards, >JK > > > > > > >-- > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jul 10 07:43:31 2003 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 HAA27557 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:43:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aZpH-00081x-Vk for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:43:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6ABh3fq030866 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:43:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aZpH-00081l-Sz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:43:03 -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 HAA27542; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:43:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aZpH-0001ws-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:43:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aZpG-0001wp-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:43:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aZpF-0007ym-Cn; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:43:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aZoh-0007yR-9s for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:42:27 -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 HAA27518 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:42:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aZog-0001wh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:42:26 -0400 Received: from mxsmta02.inithost.com ([209.235.30.104] helo=mxsmta02.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aZof-0001we-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:42:25 -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 <20030710114022.SXIQ7659.mxsmta02.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:40:22 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0D5129.5050507@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: Jon Kyme CC: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through 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, 10 Jul 2003 07:42:33 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'll say from my own experience that addresses are removed only if they bounce at the MTA level. I tried this by "sniffing" what was going on to my MTA. When I killed an account and watched I noticed that it did slow down though it took over 6 months! I believe the problem is that when the address is on the "CDROM" or list spammers buy/sell you are on it until the list gets updated and sold. But this is merely speculation. What I can also tell is that I have two accounts - one public and one very private. The public one gets spammed all the time. The private one hasn't ever gotten a spam message. The private one I use to communicate with friends, business people, etc. The public one is used on netnews (yes I know...talk about advertising!), lists such as this one and general postings. That one gets spammed all the time. Chuck Wegrzyn Jon Kyme wrote: >>> > And it's been going up by a factor of at least 2, every year, for >>> >>> >>>>about as long as I've had the domain. This is the future of email for >>>> everyone. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>I don't see how that follows, but I can't prove that you're not right. >>> >>> >>Take a random domain with a random number of addresses. Eventually >>they start getting spam. Two things happen. First, no matter what >>your churn, the addresses that got spam will continue to get >>more--even if they stop existing. Furthermore, over time typos, >>screwed up alphabet attacks and other factors will cause more and >>more non-existent addresses to get spam. It always grows. It never >>shrinks. >> >> >> > >It certainly seems that way, but all we actually know is that >it *has* always *grown*, it *has* never *shrunk*. > >This is begging the question rather. Are addresses ever removed from >spammers lists? Will they ever be? Is there an economic argument for the >list producers to "improve the quality" of their lists? Will there ever >be? What are the effect on list dynamics of current and future anti-spam >deployments? legislation? > >I guess this would come under "understanding the problem". > > > > >>Although somewhere.com is behind striker on the curve (only 10 >>million bounces last year), I've also been seeing the factor of two >>progression for the five or six years I've been tracking it. >> >> > >These are exactly the sort of numbers that someone should be collecting >(and aggregating). I'm not denying the truth of anyone's observations. It's >just that the predictions are also based on some assumptions about spammer >behaviour - which I don't know much about. > >"I can't prove you're not right" = "not falsifiable right now" (time will >tell). > >Regards, >JK > > > > > > >-- > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jul 10 07:45:30 2003 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 HAA27617 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:45:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aZrD-0008Po-9f for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:45:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6ABj3g9032342 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:45:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aZrD-0008PZ-5W for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:45:03 -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 HAA27610; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:44:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aZrC-0001xw-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:45:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aZrB-0001xt-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:45:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aZrB-0008JE-5r; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:45:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aZqK-00088d-Mo for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:44:08 -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 HAA27596 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:44:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aZqJ-0001xY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:44:08 -0400 Received: from mxsmta01.inithost.com ([209.235.30.103] helo=mxsmta01.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aZqJ-0001xV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:44:07 -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 <20030710114604.OMPT6624.mxsmta01.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:46:04 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0D518E.9060002@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: Walter Dnes CC: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through References: <3F0CA326.9010209@garbagedump.com> <20030710061233.B1266@m433> In-Reply-To: <20030710061233.B1266@m433> 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, 10 Jul 2003 07:44:14 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ah, good idea! I didn't think of that one. Does anyone have a Linux hack for this one? Chuck Wegrzyn Walter Dnes wrote: >On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 07:20:06PM -0400, C. Wegrzyn wrote > > >>The problem is the cost of opening/closing the connection - that is a >>pretty heavy penalty. I'd be more like to just route the bits to the >>great bucket in the sky. >> >> > > On the other hand, if your MTA *MERELY PRETENDS* to open a connection >(i.e. send back SYN-ACK without actually opening a connection) most >spammers will pipeline everything else through without waiting for >further responses. They *HAVE* to do this to protect against >teergrubes. > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 10 07:48:31 2003 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 HAA27754 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:48:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aZu8-00007m-8a for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:48:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6ABm4ZR000471 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:48:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aZu8-00006m-4g for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:48:04 -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 HAA27687; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:48:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aZu7-0001z4-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:48:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aZu6-0001z1-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:48:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aZu4-0008WC-Ra; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:48:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aZtD-0008VO-Ey for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:47:07 -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 HAA27671 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:47:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aZtC-0001yi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:47:06 -0400 Received: from mxsmta01.inithost.com ([209.235.30.103] helo=mxsmta01.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aZtC-0001yf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:47:06 -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 <20030710114857.ONGR6624.mxsmta01.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:48:57 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0D523C.4040208@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: Walter Dnes CC: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through References: <3F0AB06A.2080207@garbagedump.com> <20030710061318.C1266@m433> In-Reply-To: <20030710061318.C1266@m433> 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, 10 Jul 2003 07:47:08 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Walter Dnes wrote: >On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 07:52:10AM -0400, C. Wegrzyn wrote > > >>I keep seeing the statement being made that spam should be returned to >>the sender. >> >> > > It should be rejected is more appropriate. In the case of mainsleaze >spammers-in-pinstripe-suits, the sender is using their own MTA. Most of >the time, however, you have pond-scum using compromised home-users' >machines. > > > >>I might suggest something slightly different: why not have it >>delivered and marked as SPAM in the Subject line? In this way at >>least I can check to see if it really is spam? I'm afraid that if it >>is returned and we have false positives some mail might be returned >>that I do want to see. >> >> > > a) Why would I want to wade through 15 megabytes of spam after not > reading my mail for a few days ? > > b) My inbox may be the *TARGET* of 15 megs of spam, but it can only > hold 10 megabytes in total... oops. > > Because detecting spam isn't exact. I can get the number down - to a mere handful - but I know for certain that I have seen email from this list be tagged as SPAM on my client. There was some feature in it that classified it as spam...until I trained the system I would have lost them all or not even known about them. Chuck Wegrzyn _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 10 08:12:37 2003 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 IAA28420 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:12:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aaHR-0001tC-Nu for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:12:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6ACC9wa007251 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:12:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aaHR-0001sm-If for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:12:09 -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 IAA28410; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:12:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aaHQ-00028d-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:12:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aaHP-00028Z-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:12:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aaHJ-0001of-DF; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:12:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aaGY-0001lQ-Tx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:11:14 -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 IAA28375 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:11:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aaGX-00027w-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:11:13 -0400 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aaGW-00027T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:11:12 -0400 Received: from BBFUJIP.brandenburg.com (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h6ACDtF10688; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 05:13:57 -0700 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/11) Personal Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <6103832843.20030709220846@brandenburg.com> To: Barry Shein CC: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. - Spam Characterization - Possible Measurements (wa s : RE: Two ways to look at spam) In-Reply-To: <16137.65117.997711.701523@world.std.com> References: <10938235449.20030706191326@brandenburg.com> <16137.65117.997711.701523@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: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 22:08:46 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barry, BS> This relates to the idea that the only reason spammers can operate BS> effectively is because they exploit thousands of hijacked computers BS> which gives them location mobility (not geographic but in ip space.) I think your line of reasoning is aided by a distinction I've taken to making, between "rogue" spammers -- who are not accountable and for which direct controls are not feasible -- versus "responsible" spammers -- who are accountable, but too aggressive. The path you are discussing pertains to rogue spammers, not responsible ones. That does not make it impractical, useless, or the like. It merely restricts it to one segment, and not the other. The other has plenty of legal resources, and always will. And they are a serious problem, too. 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 Thu Jul 10 09:01:05 2003 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 IAA28421 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:12:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aaHR-0001tB-Nk for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:12:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6ACC9AO007246 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:12:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aaHR-0001sl-HS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:12:09 -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 IAA28407; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:12:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aaHQ-00028g-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:12:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aaHP-00028a-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:12:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aaHJ-0001on-Qd; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:12:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aaGc-0001lb-Kd for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:11:18 -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 IAA28385 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:11:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aaGb-00028A-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:11:17 -0400 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aaGa-00027Z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:11:17 -0400 Received: from BBFUJIP.brandenburg.com (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h6ACE4F10696; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 05:14:06 -0700 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/11) Personal Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <79104821134.20030709222514@brandenburg.com> To: Barry Shein CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 6. Solutions - Longterm - Replacing SMTP (Re: [Asrg] Bogus reasoning) In-Reply-To: <16137.64189.79625.460124@world.std.com> References: <009901c340e6$802a08c0$04555ccc@kensington> <3F036024.5050607@garbagedump.com> <16131.34958.614185.654845@world.std.com> <23209034.20030705181826@brandenburg.com> <16137.64189.79625.460124@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: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 22:25:14 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barry, >> Forgive me, Barry, but the idea of world peace isn't all that difficult >> either. You just have to find an amenable model. BS> I'm not sure sarcasm adds a lot to the knowledge base. That's why I made of point of continuing with pristine seriousness. In fact, even the sarcasm was not really sarcasm. I believe the logic you used was the same as I recited. I cited an extreme to make clear the nature of the underlying logic I saw with your statement. Besides, we do not have nearly enough serious levity on this list. Silliness and offensiveness, sure, but not simple levity amidst serious content. >> Effective real change to complex, existing human social systems is >> always difficult, and frequently has proved impossible. >> Feel free to cite large-scale examples to the contrary. BS> Yeah well this is just spam not world peace. BS> Besides, we've had relative world peace since WWII and most skirmishes ... BS> And there's a reason for that, I'm not pursuing this without purpose. You might want to look over the numbers of people killed from inter-group violence every year, and reconsider your claim that we have anything approaching world peace. Localized solutions are not system solutions, no matter how significant the locality. So, again I will ask: If you have any sort of engineering basis for demonstrating a track record of success involving anything like the kind of cooperation and technology you are proposing, please cite it. As nasty as spam is, it is a not a world war, and countries are not likely to have the same motivations for cooperation. You may well try to dispute that, but let me cite a small anecdote about the motivation of governments to cede their authority over to a "world" government: At one point in the earlier days of DNS name space expansion discussions, an attorney suggested that dispute resolution be achieved with actual international (ie, between and across nations) law (ie, law, not contract enforcement as we now have.) Intellectual property issues are a very serious international matter, with a considerable history of international discussion. A global, legal authority for domain name disputes would be a cleaner solution that we are now using, so I was hopeful... until he explained that there was no basis for such international law, now, and that it had been under discussion for 100 years. I am assuming that most folks want useful spam controls in a shorter time-frame than centuries. 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 Thu Jul 10 09:42:40 2003 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 JAA01793 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:42:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19abgc-0000bX-7h for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:42:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6ADgEp5002319 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:42:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19abgc-0000bK-3c for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:42:14 -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 JAA01742; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:42:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19abga-0002tC-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:42:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19abgZ-0002t9-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:42:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19abgQ-0000Xa-H4; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:42:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19abg8-0000XE-Q8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:41:44 -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 JAA01695 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:41:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19abg6-0002sk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:41:43 -0400 Received: from mnr1.microneil.com ([216.88.36.96]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19abg6-0002sX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:41:42 -0400 Received: by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix, from userid 93) id 0D4AD29C040; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:41:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MicroNeil.com (mail.microneil.com [216.88.36.161]) by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D192729C019 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:41:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MNR01 [216.88.36.10] by MicroNeil.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.05) id ACCE10B000C8; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:40:30 -0400 From: "Pete McNeil" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through Message-ID: <001301c346e8$d421d590$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 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030710004252.03746758@solidmatrix.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 X-Declude-Spoolname: D6cce0c8.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: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:40:29 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think you are correct. For my opinion, it cannot be a requirement because the definition of spam and non-spam is inconsistent, and because no mechanism for determining this is perfect. No doubt that it should be a _goal_ however. _M >-----Original Message----- >From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On >Behalf Of Yakov Shafranovich >Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 12:43 AM >To: asrg@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through > > >Going back to the original question >(https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current >/msg06391.html): > >"Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam >messages reach >their intended recipients." > >Am I correct in assuming that the overall opinion of the group >seems to be >that this statement cannot be part of the requirements? > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jul 10 09:50:33 2003 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 JAA02057 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:50:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aboC-00017L-T8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:50:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6ADo4q6004289 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:50:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aboC-000176-Oi for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:50:04 -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 JAA02033; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:49:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aboA-0002yu-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:50:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19abo9-0002yr-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:50:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19abo9-000144-7l; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:50:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19abo4-00013l-3G for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:49:56 -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 JAA02025 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:49:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19abo2-0002yY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:49:54 -0400 Received: from yampa.river.com ([206.168.112.68] helo=mdev.river.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19abo1-0002yG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:49:53 -0400 Received: from localhost (v13.river.com [206.168.117.188]) by mdev.river.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3F356930; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:49:47 -0600 (MDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030710004252.03746758@solidmatrix.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030710004252.03746758@solidmatrix.com> To: asrg@ietf.org From: "Richard Johnson" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through Cc: asrg@ietf.org 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, 10 Jul 2003 07:40:13 -0600 At 00:42 -0400 on 2003-07-10, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Going back to the original question > >(https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg06391.html): > > "Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages reach > their intended recipients." > > Am I correct in assuming that the overall opinion of the group seems to be > that this statement cannot be part of the requirements? I believe you are correct. You are certainly correct that the statement is not an acceptable requirement for my systems. Both as a matter of practicality, and as a matter of policy here, we block entire networks. We consider spammy networks a security issue (DoS), and engage the same protection techniques we would against other exploit attempts. This means that effectively no mail from the networks we consider pro-spam gets through. Putting it another way, the network is irresponsible or otherwise a bad neighbor, and thus too great a risk, so we drop all their SMTP connections. A requirement to instead accept their mail and spin cycles analyzing it for spammishness is simply not going to fly here. Richard _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 10 10:28:38 2003 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 KAA04516 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:28:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19acP2-0004IZ-VE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:28:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6AES8qX016521 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:28:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19acP2-0004IO-E5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:28:08 -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 KAA04509; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:28:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19acP0-0003K1-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:28:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19acOz-0003Jy-00; Thu, 10 Jul 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 19acOv-0004GL-97; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:28:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19acOM-000488-J2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:27:26 -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 KAA04482 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:27:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19acOK-0003Jp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:27:24 -0400 Received: from bill.lut.ac.uk ([158.125.1.193]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19acOJ-0003Jm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:27:23 -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 19acOH-00082x-KE for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:27:21 +0100 Received: from [158.125.1.122] (helo=bod.lut.ac.uk) by studentpop1.lboro.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 19acOH-0007rg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:27:21 +0100 Received: from apache by bod.lut.ac.uk with local (Exim 4.12) id 19acOH-0007WZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:27:21 +0100 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through Message-ID: <1057847241.3f0d77c97d830@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> From: Andrew Akehurst References: <3F0D5129.5050507@garbagedump.com> In-Reply-To: <3F0D5129.5050507@garbagedump.com> 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: -17.5 (-----------------) X-Scanner: exiscan for exim4 (http://duncanthrax.net/exiscan/) *19acOH-00082x-KE*Wj6LZzuz7.g* X-Lboro-Filtered: bill.lut.ac.uk, Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:27:21 +0100 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, 10 Jul 2003 15:27:21 +0100 (BST) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Quoting "C. Wegrzyn" : > What I can also tell is that I have two accounts - one public and one > very private. The public one gets spammed all the time. The private one > hasn't ever gotten a spam message. The private one I use to communicate > with friends, business people, etc. The public one is used on netnews > (yes I know...talk about advertising!), lists such as this one and > general postings. That one gets spammed all the time. How long have you had that private address? Perhaps there's something about the name which makes it difficult to guess in a dictionary attack. I've been through three private addresses over a period of 5 years, all based at Hotmail. Admittedly it's an obvious domain for spammers to target, so that might be a factor in what follows. But anyway here's one insight... The first Hotmail address got spammed because I was careless in those days, gave it out widely and I'm sure it found its way into various list archives and other web pages so it got crawled easily. Eventually I ditched it because the spam was overwhelming and Hotmail filtering was pretty non-existant in those days. Even if I hadn't given it out, it was a pretty short easily-guessed name and Hotmail tended to list people by default in their member directory anyway. The second new address was still fairly simple in composition: a string of 10 alphabetic characters representing my intials and surname. I was a lot more careful to keep this private but somehow spam started to trickle in and (perhaps because the initial trickle failed to bounce), a whole flood opened up. I suspect that this account was spammed by dictionary attack, particularly because other (very similar) addresses at Hotmail often appeared in the "To:" or "CC:" headers of the spam I received. Hotmail was pretty obliging about sending "no such user" bounces in those days so I'm sure this was an effective method for the spammer. (I've no idea what their bounce policy is like now.) My latest Hotmail address I've been equally paranoid about giving out, but I chose a less obvious name with an underscore embedded. For the first 9 months I received no spam whatsoever but now some has begun to arrive. In this case I think either a company I corresponded with has sold my address or else dictionary attacks are becoming more sophisticated. The issue of how spammers obtain e-mail addresses in the first place, and under what conditions they tend to stop sending to an address can be helpful to understanding the nature of the problem. In fact I've still kept one of my old addresses as a spam trap so I can collect spam and study it. I'm guessing that many honeypot people do analysis like this all the time, only they're in a position to do so more rigorously than my little dabbling. Any insights into this would be most interesting (to me at any rate). Andrew > Chuck Wegrzyn > > Jon Kyme wrote: > > >>> > And it's been going up by a factor of at least 2, every year, > for > >>> > >>> > >>>>about as long as I've had the domain. This is the future of email > for > >>>> everyone. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>I don't see how that follows, but I can't prove that you're not > right. > >>> > >>> > >>Take a random domain with a random number of addresses. Eventually > >>they start getting spam. Two things happen. First, no matter what > >>your churn, the addresses that got spam will continue to get > >>more--even if they stop existing. Furthermore, over time typos, > >>screwed up alphabet attacks and other factors will cause more and > >>more non-existent addresses to get spam. It always grows. It never > >>shrinks. > >> > >> > >> > > > >It certainly seems that way, but all we actually know is that > >it *has* always *grown*, it *has* never *shrunk*. > > > >This is begging the question rather. Are addresses ever removed from > >spammers lists? Will they ever be? Is there an economic argument for > the > >list producers to "improve the quality" of their lists? Will there > ever > >be? What are the effect on list dynamics of current and future > anti-spam > >deployments? legislation? > > > >I guess this would come under "understanding the problem". > > > > > > > > > >>Although somewhere.com is behind striker on the curve (only 10 > >>million bounces last year), I've also been seeing the factor of two > >>progression for the five or six years I've been tracking it. > >> > >> > > > >These are exactly the sort of numbers that someone should be > collecting > >(and aggregating). I'm not denying the truth of anyone's observations. > It's > >just that the predictions are also based on some assumptions about > spammer > >behaviour - which I don't know much about. > > > >"I can't prove you're not right" = "not falsifiable right now" (time > will > >tell). > > > >Regards, > >JK > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 Jul 10 10:37:31 2003 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 KAA05199 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:37:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19acXh-0005f5-VD for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:37:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6AEb5q1021757 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:37:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19acXh-0005eq-Rj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:37:05 -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 KAA05152; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:37:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19acXf-0003T0-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:37:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19acXe-0003Sx-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:37:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19acXd-0005Zn-Ok; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:37:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19acXG-0005YQ-A4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:36:38 -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 KAA05095 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:36:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19acXD-0003Rt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:36:35 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19acXC-0003Rm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:36:34 -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 <20030710143829.SQPY28645.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:38:29 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0D79FB.9040504@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: Andrew Akehurst CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through References: <3F0D5129.5050507@garbagedump.com> <1057847241.3f0d77c97d830@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <1057847241.3f0d77c97d830@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> 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, 10 Jul 2003 10:36:43 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Andrew, The private email address is absolutely simple to guess. I think it has more to do with how I use it than the name. It also isn't part of the "public" email systems available - Yahoo, MSN, AOL - and I think that is the difference. I've often thought about keeping the private one for all my communications and using ".forward" on all my public persona's. In the public persona's I would run filters and forward only non-spam (or at least closer to non-spam). I have opened up a new email account on Hotmail and within a week I had more than a dozen spam messages in it! I think these guys sell the email addresses and do nothing but contribute to spam. But it is merely a guess; I can think of no other way that my unused email address would have gotten out. Chuck Wegrzyn Andrew Akehurst wrote: >Quoting "C. Wegrzyn" : > > >>What I can also tell is that I have two accounts - one public and one >>very private. The public one gets spammed all the time. The private one >>hasn't ever gotten a spam message. The private one I use to communicate >>with friends, business people, etc. The public one is used on netnews >>(yes I know...talk about advertising!), lists such as this one and >>general postings. That one gets spammed all the time. >> >> > >How long have you had that private address? Perhaps there's something about the >name which makes it difficult to guess in a dictionary attack. > >I've been through three private addresses over a period of 5 years, all based >at Hotmail. Admittedly it's an obvious domain for spammers to target, so that >might be a factor in what follows. But anyway here's one insight... > >The first Hotmail address got spammed because I was careless in those days, >gave it out widely and I'm sure it found its way into various list archives and >other web pages so it got crawled easily. Eventually I ditched it because the >spam was overwhelming and Hotmail filtering was pretty non-existant in those >days. Even if I hadn't given it out, it was a pretty short easily-guessed name >and Hotmail tended to list people by default in their member directory anyway. > >The second new address was still fairly simple in composition: a string of 10 >alphabetic characters representing my intials and surname. I was a lot more >careful to keep this private but somehow spam started to trickle in and >(perhaps because the initial trickle failed to bounce), a whole flood opened >up. I suspect that this account was spammed by dictionary attack, particularly >because other (very similar) addresses at Hotmail often appeared in the "To:" >or "CC:" headers of the spam I received. Hotmail was pretty obliging about >sending "no such user" bounces in those days so I'm sure this was an effective >method for the spammer. (I've no idea what their bounce policy is like now.) > >My latest Hotmail address I've been equally paranoid about giving out, but I >chose a less obvious name with an underscore embedded. For the first 9 months I >received no spam whatsoever but now some has begun to arrive. In this case I >think either a company I corresponded with has sold my address or else >dictionary attacks are becoming more sophisticated. > >The issue of how spammers obtain e-mail addresses in the first place, and under >what conditions they tend to stop sending to an address can be helpful to >understanding the nature of the problem. In fact I've still kept one of my old >addresses as a spam trap so I can collect spam and study it. > >I'm guessing that many honeypot people do analysis like this all the time, only >they're in a position to do so more rigorously than my little dabbling. Any >insights into this would be most interesting (to me at any rate). > >Andrew > > > >>Chuck Wegrzyn >> >>Jon Kyme wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>> And it's been going up by a factor of at least 2, every year, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>for >> >> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>about as long as I've had the domain. This is the future of email >>>>>> >>>>>> >>for >> >> >>>>>>everyone. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>I don't see how that follows, but I can't prove that you're not >>>>> >>>>> >>right. >> >> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>Take a random domain with a random number of addresses. Eventually >>>>they start getting spam. Two things happen. First, no matter what >>>>your churn, the addresses that got spam will continue to get >>>>more--even if they stop existing. Furthermore, over time typos, >>>>screwed up alphabet attacks and other factors will cause more and >>>>more non-existent addresses to get spam. It always grows. It never >>>>shrinks. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>It certainly seems that way, but all we actually know is that >>>it *has* always *grown*, it *has* never *shrunk*. >>> >>>This is begging the question rather. Are addresses ever removed from >>>spammers lists? Will they ever be? Is there an economic argument for >>> >>> >>the >> >> >>>list producers to "improve the quality" of their lists? Will there >>> >>> >>ever >> >> >>>be? What are the effect on list dynamics of current and future >>> >>> >>anti-spam >> >> >>>deployments? legislation? >>> >>>I guess this would come under "understanding the problem". >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Although somewhere.com is behind striker on the curve (only 10 >>>>million bounces last year), I've also been seeing the factor of two >>>>progression for the five or six years I've been tracking it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>These are exactly the sort of numbers that someone should be >>> >>> >>collecting >> >> >>>(and aggregating). I'm not denying the truth of anyone's observations. >>> >>> >>It's >> >> >>>just that the predictions are also based on some assumptions about >>> >>> >>spammer >> >> >>>behaviour - which I don't know much about. >>> >>>"I can't prove you're not right" = "not falsifiable right now" (time >>> >>> >>will >> >> >>>tell). >>> >>>Regards, >>>JK >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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 Thu Jul 10 11:05:01 2003 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 LAA06184 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:05:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19acyJ-0007kM-Uf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:04:37 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6AF4ZQD029779 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:04:35 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19acyJ-0007kE-RB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:04:35 -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 LAA06124; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:04:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19acyH-0003hx-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:04:33 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19acyG-0003hu-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:04:32 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19acxm-0007ak-KG; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:04:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19acxQ-0007Wf-Sn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:03:40 -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 LAA06085 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:03:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19acxO-0003hC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:03:38 -0400 Received: from dns.novitraq.com ([204.92.85.2]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19acxN-0003h8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:03:37 -0400 Received: from kensington (kensington [204.92.85.4]) by novitraq.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/2.3.0.1402) id NVTRD8EB8E24 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:00:11 -0400 From: "Elric Pedder" To: "'ASRG'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through Organization: Novitraq Inc Message-ID: <014501c346f4$5e5948a0$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: 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: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:03:06 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Jon Kyme > Sent: July 10, 2003 06:18 > To: ASRG > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through > > Am I correct in assuming that the overall opinion of the > > group seems to be that this statement cannot be part of the > > requirements? > I think "must ensure" sets the bar way too high. I think that > either the sender, intended recipient or (possibly) both, must > be able to determine that a message wasn't delivered because > of some anti-spam thingy. I agree with this. I would be careful about the wording though, as the requirement "must be able to determine" may be met by message tracking systems which the sender must manually invoke. When someone sends an e-mail, until they hear otherwise they should assume that it has reached its recipient in a timely and readily readable manner. That means that it hasn't ended up in a rarely read spam-trap and has not been silently dropped. This can be achieved either by (1) having the receiving agent issue a notification that the messages has been refused, or (2) by having one of the MTAs in the chain reject the message. (2) is better because there is the risk that (1) may also be rejected or classified as spam, and because (1) results in considerable effort on the part of the receiver. (1) should, however, be a DSN without return path to prevent loops. An attempt to notify sender is probably sufficient. I still believe that in order to maintain the end-to-end nature of SMTP the solution "must ensure" that the message is either delivered (to all the recipients' agents) or rejected (resulting in sender notification, subject to upstream MTA fulfilling its responsibilities). -- 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 Thu Jul 10 11:07:31 2003 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 LAA06289 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:07:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ad0k-000842-65 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:07:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6AF76LD030992 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:07:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ad0k-00083n-2r for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:07:06 -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 LAA06282; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:07:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ad0h-0003kr-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:07:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ad0g-0003ko-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:07:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ad0g-00081R-Sd; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:07:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ad0e-00080W-8r for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:07:00 -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 LAA06279 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:06:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ad0b-0003kl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:06:57 -0400 Received: from bay2-f63.bay2.hotmail.com ([65.54.247.63] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ad0a-0003kO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:06:57 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:06:25 -0700 Received: from 195.17.73.72 by by2fd.bay2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:06:25 GMT X-Originating-IP: [195.17.73.72] X-Originating-Email: [kmn_asgr@hotmail.com] From: "Kurt Magnusson" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jul 2003 15:06:25.0225 (UTC) FILETIME=[D4C68390:01C346F4] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id LAA06280 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 10 Jul 2003 13:06:25 -0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >How can you return mail to the "sender" when you don't know who that is? > >I get tens of false bounces of mails I never sent every day. Most of the >time it is a virus that has hijacked my address, sometimes it is spam. Totaly correct, but there is two reasons why a spam theoretically should be returned as undeliverable. 1. Many of todays anti-spam tools do sort valid mail as spam. Those senders should be notefied that their mail did not get through. 2. Those spammers faking addresses on a relay, is probably unknown by the postmaster. A lot of undelivery messages in the log might get some attention. OK a lot of them never looks in the logs, but some might. A practical problem with returning spam, that might be the main issue, is that I don't want it back as undeliverable. That is why I didn=B4t implemented it. Chucks idea of changing the subject line is not a wrong idea. But if also returned, it might further press a lazy relay postmaster to do something. The spams get more visiable. But since we are on the topic, in order not to get hanged by those commercial powers, we also then need to look at the possibility that spams with ADV: in the subject is left up to the individual ISP and/or user to filter away. That is we need to have some rules for how to identifying "correct" commercial mailing. There is some RFC for ca -98 dealing with that, if I remember right. > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: C. Wegrzyn >> ........ >>the sender. I might suggest something slightly different: why >>not have >>it delivered and marked as SPAM in the Subject line? In this way at >>least I can check to see if it really is spam? I'm afraid ........... >>>Kurt Magnusson wrote: .......... >> > I do agree with you regarding the last, we should return >> > undeliverables, but I do not agree that we need to live > with false= =20 >>positives. Kurt Magnusson _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online=20 http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3D3963 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 10 11:39:37 2003 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 LAA07887 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:39:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19adVm-0002RD-NU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:39:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6AFdAAh009365 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:39:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19adVm-0002Qy-JT for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:39:10 -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 LAA07877; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:39:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19adVl-000466-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:39:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19adVk-000463-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:39:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19adVd-0002Nn-1X; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:39:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19adV3-0002ME-TY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:38:25 -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 LAA07825 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:38:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19adV2-00045f-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:38:24 -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 19adV1-00045c-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:38:23 -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 19adU7-0001Oq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:37:27 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:42:53 EDT." <5.2.0.9.2.20030710004252.03746758@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: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:37:27 -0400 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Going back to the original question > (https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg06391.html): > > "Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages reach > their intended recipients." > > Am I correct in assuming that the overall opinion of the group seems to be > that this statement cannot be part of the requirements? Yes. I would re-phrase the statement, by adding a final condition: "Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages reach their intended recipients, unless the intended recipients indicate otherwise." With some additional caveats: a) the recipient SHOULD be notified of any potential non-spam messages which were blocked, and SHOULD be given the opportunity to indicate consent to receiving those messages b) the recipient SHOULD occasionally be informed as to the nature of the message filtering, and given the opportunity to update their statement of consent (or non-consent) c) if there is no communication from the recipient as to the nature of his or her consent for some time period, the anti-spam system SHOULD remove all filtering, and assume that the recipient consents to all traffic. The purpose of (a) is to keep the recipient "in the loop" that there may be messages of interest. The purpose of (b) is to verify that the anti-spam system is implementing the consent of the recipient. The purpose of (c) is to try to avoid dropping valid messages, due to network problems, or implementation bugs in the anti-spam system. i.e. When in doubt, force the recipients to re-state their consent. I would also add another implementation caveat: d) anti-spam systems MAY exchange consent information. e.g. an ISP informs his upstream provider that ip-range/mask may be blocked from sending data to port 25. For the purpose of anti-spam systems exchanging consent, the system sending consent MUST be treated as a recipient, and the above conditions (a) through (c) MUST be applied. i.e. For the purpose of an upstream provider, a downstream ISP is just another "recipient" of network traffic, with which consent may be exchanged and enforced. The consent of the ISP is the sum total of the consent of the ISP's customers, and the ISP's consent. But for the purposes of exchanging consent with the upstream provider, the ISP claims ownership for *all* consent statements sent to that provider. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 10 15:14:20 2003 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 PAA17843 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:14:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19agrZ-0005vW-9z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:13:53 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6AJDrMV022776 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:13:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19agrZ-0005vH-5p for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:13:53 -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 PAA17782; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:13:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19agrX-0006MP-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:13:51 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19agrX-0006ML-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:13:51 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19agqh-0005t4-GJ; Thu, 10 Jul 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 19agpy-0005im-Le for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:12:14 -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 PAA17594 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:12:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19agpx-0006L8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:12:13 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19agpw-0006L5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:12:12 -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 <20030710191406.WODI28645.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com> for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:14:06 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0DBA94.6020401@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 CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through 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: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:12:20 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've been giving more thought to how to slow down spamming. It seems we should just follow 7.3 of RFC2821 - return either 250 or 252 to VRFY and EXPN commands. In this way the sender can't find out if someone is really on a system. Second I would kick back a 551 to every message being sent by a domain/user I don't recognize or wanted to reject as SPAM. In the former case I would send the email to the real recipient allowing them to decide what to do with it. I the latter case I would just toss it or fill in the subject with SPAM:. Thoughts? Chuck Wegrzyn _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 10 15:23:36 2003 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 PAA18394 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:23:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ah0T-0006YX-Fq for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:23:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6AJN5Sj025195 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:23:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ah0T-0006YI-CO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:23:05 -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 PAA18385; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:23:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ah0R-0006Ro-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:23:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ah0R-0006Rl-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:23:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ah0P-0006VF-Er; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:23:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ah0A-0006UZ-44 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:22:46 -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 PAA18367 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:22:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ah05-0006RJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:22:41 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.202.55]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ah04-0006R0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:22:40 -0400 Received: from video.comcast.net (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211](untrusted sender)) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with SMTP id <2003071019220801100jr70he> (Authid: s.schear); Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:22:09 +0000 Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.0.20030710121238.047d0f90@mail.comcast.net> X-Sender: s.schear@mail.comcast.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 To: Andrew Akehurst , Spencer Dawkins From: Steve Schear Subject: Re: [Asrg] Maintaining Anonymity in an Authenticated System Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <1057237000.3f042808b5ac4@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> References: <061701c34159$4f2bc830$0200a8c0@DFNJGL21> <1057231407.3f04122febaa2@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> <061701c34159$4f2bc830$0200a8c0@DFNJGL21> 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: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:20:12 -0700 At 12:56 2003-07-03 +0000, Andrew Akehurst wrote: >I do take your point about the ease of setting this up. However it would >create >a nice market for companies to provide proxying to common webmail services. >They could let me log in at their website and proxy on my behalf to >Hotmail (or >whoever), passing the results back to my browser. To average Joe Public it >could be made very easy to use by being almost totally transparent and it >would >make a nice business opportunity for companies to rent such services to >people. Its much more generalized and effective to just proxy all Web access, like Anonymizer and JAP. > > Now, this is fairly true, but is anonymity via webmail sufficient? > >It's difficult to say. On the technical side, with only access to the IP >address of my proxy and my message itself it might still be possible to >identify me by my apparent relationship with those I contact. Then again, it >might still be possible to do so if I wrote a letter to someone. > >If I were really paranoid I'd use something like public key cryptography and >send my messages that way. Whether webmail companies would provide that >service >for free is another matter. Certainly having a protocol which sends e-mail >over >encrypted connections between MTAs might help stop eavesdroppers en route >from >intercepting my message. The technology to do that is readily available. > >One issue is that if courts could order anonymiser services to surrender >their >logs then that might be a problem. These services, like the mixmaster remailers, do not keep/generate logs. There are many other net address obfuscation techniques. See http://gray-world.net for a good overview of tunneling, covert channels, network related steganographic methods. steve "There is no protection or safety in anticipatory servility." Craig Spencer _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 10 15:34:38 2003 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 PAA18772 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:34:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ahBD-0007n2-Mu for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:34:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6AJYBWd029939 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:34:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ahBD-0007mo-IH for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:34:11 -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 PAA18765; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:34:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ahBC-0006YB-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:34:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ahBB-0006Y8-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:34:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ahB2-0007ki-BM; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:34:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ahAQ-0007hj-AJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:33:22 -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 PAA18736 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:33:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ahAO-0006Xk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:33:20 -0400 Received: from law12-f109.law12.hotmail.com ([64.4.19.109] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ahAO-0006Wv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:33:20 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:32:49 -0700 Received: from 12.254.138.252 by lw12fd.law12.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:32:49 GMT X-Originating-IP: [12.254.138.252] X-Originating-Email: [pontifier@hotmail.com] From: "John Fenley" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jul 2003 19:32:49.0550 (UTC) FILETIME=[0C2CF2E0:01C3471A] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 10 Jul 2003 13:32:49 -0600 From: "Yakov Shafranovich" Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 10:42 PM >Going back to the original question >(https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg06391.html): > >"Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages reach >their intended recipients." > >Am I correct in assuming that the overall opinion of the group seems to be >that this statement cannot be part of the requirements? I believe that systems for sorting/blocking/handling email are inherently a proposed defenition of what spam is. They have their own defenitions of what spam is because of what they block. therefore in that context any system is self consistent in what it percieves to be spam, and what it blocks. If a filter does it's best, and the mechanism for filtering is known, then i feel it would be compliant with the statement above. Thus when you choose a system to block/filter mail you should ensure that the defenition that system provides is similar to your own. Any "non spam" that didn't go through would then be caused by a missunderstanding of the defenition that the system implies. John Fenley _________________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Jul 10 15:48:35 2003 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 PAA19167 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:48:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ahOi-000150-K5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:48:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6AJm897004145 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:48:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ahOi-00014m-HD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:48:08 -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 PAA19153; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:48:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ahOg-0006f2-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:48:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ahOg-0006ez-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:48:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ahOb-00012o-4f; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:48:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ahOa-00012Y-1W for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:48:00 -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 PAA19149 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:47:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ahOY-0006et-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:47:58 -0400 Received: from law12-f36.law12.hotmail.com ([64.4.19.36] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ahOX-0006eY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:47:58 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:47:26 -0700 Received: from 12.254.138.252 by lw12fd.law12.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:47:26 GMT X-Originating-IP: [12.254.138.252] X-Originating-Email: [pontifier@hotmail.com] From: "John Fenley" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nothing will stop spam??? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jul 2003 19:47:26.0902 (UTC) FILETIME=[171E3D60:01C3471C] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id PAA19150 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 10 Jul 2003 13:47:26 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: "Walter Dnes" Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 4:11 AM >Password approach >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >ASRG puts up an XML structure on its signup page. The necessary >elements are something like >- TOKEN =3D OOGA_BOOGA >Subscribing consists clicking on a URL. This will pop up a dialog in >the users's browser that... >1) Submits the the user's email address to the mailing list >2) Saves the XML token data to the user's account on his ISP. > >Spammer notices that this group is almost exclusively male, and a >p****-enlargement ad will be "100% targetted". Spammer sends a spam >containing the additional SMTP command... >TOKN: OOGA_BOOGA >Recipient's ISP checks their database, sees that this client has listed >OOGA_BOOGA as a valid consent token, and lets the spam through... oops. In my Choicelist system I propose a similar link based permission system. Quote: =93Adding entries to the list is done by entering the Choicelist identity number of the desired list into the box provided, or clicking on a special Opt-In link such as: Opt-In A link like this would be recognized by the MUA. The user would then be asked to confirm the Opt-In.=94 The sender can prevent spoofing of a Choicelist opt-in by adding=20 authentication information to their identity, so at least in this=20 implementation the attack you proposed would not work. John Fenley _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* =20 http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/junkmail _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 10 16:13:38 2003 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 QAA20006 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:13:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ahmx-0003Rw-Dz for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:13:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6AKDBAC013254 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:13:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ahmx-0003Rh-AV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:13:11 -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 QAA19973; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:13:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ahmv-0006s3-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:13:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ahmv-0006s0-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:13:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ahmn-0003NW-B7; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:13:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ahmM-0003My-Ay for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:12:34 -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 QAA19956 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:12:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ahmK-0006rb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:12:32 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ahmJ-0006rY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:12:31 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (CwM2@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6AKCONS002903; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:12:24 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA04007; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:12:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16141.51367.222837.609036@world.std.com> To: Dave Crocker Cc: Barry Shein , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. - Spam Characterization - Possible Measurements (wa s : RE: Two ways to look at spam) In-Reply-To: <6103832843.20030709220846@brandenburg.com> References: <10938235449.20030706191326@brandenburg.com> <16137.65117.997711.701523@world.std.com> <6103832843.20030709220846@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, 10 Jul 2003 16:12:23 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On July 9, 2003 at 22:08 dhc@dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) wrote: > Barry, > > BS> This relates to the idea that the only reason spammers can operate > BS> effectively is because they exploit thousands of hijacked computers > BS> which gives them location mobility (not geographic but in ip space.) > > I think your line of reasoning is aided by a distinction I've taken to > making, between "rogue" spammers -- who are not accountable and for > which direct controls are not feasible -- versus "responsible" spammers > -- who are accountable, but too aggressive. I agree that's an important and useful distinction. One advantage we tend to have with non-rogue spammers is that they are generally easy to block (their IP sources are relatively stable and they don't tend to hide their identities), although I'd agree that one shouldn't have to waste their time blocking them out of exasperation, life should be more orderly. I recently had an experience with Apple who was sending one of their mailing lists to all kinds of addresses here which never could have existed (e.g., domains which never had email service.) Requests to remove those addresses and generally clean up their act so that kind of thing doesn't happen went completely ignored, not even the usual automated response brush-off. Oh well, not hard to imagine where that's going...Apple's just going to get itself blacklisted piece by piece. But my point is that is, thus far, the major annoyance to me from the non-rogue are otherwise reasonably legitimate businesses that have obtained mailing lists from questionable sources and/or won't clean up their mailing lists, ever, so the number of mailings and user unknowns just grows and grows as addresses age and die. But why should they clean up their act? It's just more expense to them, this way Apple et al can shift their costs to the recipient systems. That is, until they're just blacklisted entirely. > The path you are discussing pertains to rogue spammers, not responsible > ones. That does not make it impractical, useless, or the like. It > merely restricts it to one segment, and not the other. > > The other has plenty of legal resources, and always will. And they are > a serious problem, too. I'll add a third class, and maybe a fourth if you want to split hairs: Nutballs and sociopaths: These are people (or small groups of people) who exhibit some of the superficial characteristics of spammers (they send a lot of unwanted mail by automated means), but their purpose is either unknowable (nutballs) or malicious (sociopaths.) The problem with these groups are that many, e.g., economic controls are likely to be useless with them since they seem to have no commercial purpose. Although not the biggest problem I think it's more common than people imagine. -- -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 Jul 10 16:17:49 2003 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 QAA20158 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:17:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ahr1-0003xa-V3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:17:23 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6AKHNcc015216 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:17:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ahr1-0003xL-OK for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:17:23 -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 QAA20142; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:17:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ahqz-0006vA-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:17:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ahqz-0006v7-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:17:21 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ahqf-0003uD-TO; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:17:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ahqC-0003tb-Rt for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:16:32 -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 QAA20130 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:16:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ahqB-0006uz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:16:31 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ahqA-0006uw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:16:30 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (CwM2@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6AKGRNS010258; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:16:27 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA04865; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:16:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16141.51610.790014.435549@world.std.com> To: Dave Crocker Cc: Barry Shein , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 6. Solutions - Longterm - Replacing SMTP (Re: [Asrg] Bogus reasoning) In-Reply-To: <79104821134.20030709222514@brandenburg.com> References: <009901c340e6$802a08c0$04555ccc@kensington> <3F036024.5050607@garbagedump.com> <16131.34958.614185.654845@world.std.com> <23209034.20030705181826@brandenburg.com> <16137.64189.79625.460124@world.std.com> <79104821134.20030709222514@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, 10 Jul 2003 16:16:26 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think the underlying point, to cut to the quick, is that in the end it's all game theory and one effective means of playing game theory is to use real economics (money) to assign the cost weightings. But "I'll cut, you choose" and similar games are also effective in many walks of life. Of course, the big problem in that always is when one side or the other can cheat. I know, easier said than done... -- -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 Jul 10 16:20:34 2003 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 QAA20236 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:20:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ahte-000458-CJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:20:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6AKK6Sh015684 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:20:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ahte-00044t-6o for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:20:06 -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 QAA20214; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:20:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ahtc-0006wF-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:20:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ahtb-0006wC-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:20:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ahtZ-00042q-Rt; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:20:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ahsc-00041n-1D for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:19:02 -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 QAA20207 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:18:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ahsa-0006w1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:19:00 -0400 Received: from mxsmta01.inithost.com ([209.235.30.103] helo=mxsmta01.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ahsZ-0006vr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:18:59 -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 <20030710202051.VANW6624.mxsmta01.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:20:51 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0DCA35.5050008@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: Barry Shein CC: Dave Crocker , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. - Spam Characterization - Possible Measurements (wa s : RE: Two ways to look at spam) References: <10938235449.20030706191326@brandenburg.com> <16137.65117.997711.701523@world.std.com> <6103832843.20030709220846@brandenburg.com> <16141.51367.222837.609036@world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <16141.51367.222837.609036@world.std.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, 10 Jul 2003 16:19:01 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This was also the point of my email about the two kinds of spam I have seen. The first kind has no email address in the message body (what spammer would tell you how to get back at them). The second kind has an email address in the body of the message and the domain in the email address is to be found in the headers too. I think Barry and I both missed a third kind as well. There are some that actually send you an email with some offer very attractive and an email address. Of course the offer is bogus - all they want you to do is click a URL on the email page that takes you back to some site. The purpose? To verify that you really are there. Is this a rogue spammer or not? Chuck Barry Shein wrote: >On July 9, 2003 at 22:08 dhc@dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) wrote: > > Barry, > > > > BS> This relates to the idea that the only reason spammers can operate > > BS> effectively is because they exploit thousands of hijacked computers > > BS> which gives them location mobility (not geographic but in ip space.) > > > > I think your line of reasoning is aided by a distinction I've taken to > > making, between "rogue" spammers -- who are not accountable and for > > which direct controls are not feasible -- versus "responsible" spammers > > -- who are accountable, but too aggressive. > >I agree that's an important and useful distinction. > >One advantage we tend to have with non-rogue spammers is that they are >generally easy to block (their IP sources are relatively stable and >they don't tend to hide their identities), although I'd agree that one >shouldn't have to waste their time blocking them out of exasperation, >life should be more orderly. > >I recently had an experience with Apple who was sending one of their >mailing lists to all kinds of addresses here which never could have >existed (e.g., domains which never had email service.) > >Requests to remove those addresses and generally clean up their act so >that kind of thing doesn't happen went completely ignored, not even >the usual automated response brush-off. > >Oh well, not hard to imagine where that's going...Apple's just going >to get itself blacklisted piece by piece. > >But my point is that is, thus far, the major annoyance to me from the >non-rogue are otherwise reasonably legitimate businesses that have >obtained mailing lists from questionable sources and/or won't clean up >their mailing lists, ever, so the number of mailings and user unknowns >just grows and grows as addresses age and die. > >But why should they clean up their act? It's just more expense to >them, this way Apple et al can shift their costs to the recipient >systems. > >That is, until they're just blacklisted entirely. > > > The path you are discussing pertains to rogue spammers, not responsible > > ones. That does not make it impractical, useless, or the like. It > > merely restricts it to one segment, and not the other. > > > > The other has plenty of legal resources, and always will. And they are > > a serious problem, too. > >I'll add a third class, and maybe a fourth if you want to split hairs: > >Nutballs and sociopaths: These are people (or small groups of people) >who exhibit some of the superficial characteristics of spammers (they >send a lot of unwanted mail by automated means), but their purpose is >either unknowable (nutballs) or malicious (sociopaths.) > >The problem with these groups are that many, e.g., economic controls >are likely to be useless with them since they seem to have no >commercial purpose. > >Although not the biggest problem I think it's more common than people >imagine. > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 10 16:53:42 2003 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 QAA21164 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:53:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aiPk-000777-LS for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:53:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6AKrGZk027340 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:53:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aiPk-00076s-GT for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:53:16 -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 QAA21158; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:53:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aiPi-0007Br-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:53:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aiPh-0007Bo-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:53:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aiPV-00073o-Ao; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:53:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aiOj-000714-4L for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:52:13 -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 QAA21147 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:52:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aiOZ-0007Bl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:52:03 -0400 Received: from bill.lut.ac.uk ([158.125.1.193]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aiOY-0007Bi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:52:02 -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 19aiOW-0006gu-IH for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:52:00 +0100 Received: from [158.125.1.122] (helo=bod.lut.ac.uk) by studentpop1.lboro.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 19aiOW-00062V-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:52:00 +0100 Received: from apache by bod.lut.ac.uk with local (Exim 4.12) id 19aiOW-0000TW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:52:00 +0100 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Maintaining Anonymity in an Authenticated System Message-ID: <1057870320.3f0dd1f04502e@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> From: Andrew Akehurst References: <061701c34159$4f2bc830$0200a8c0@DFNJGL21> <1057231407.3f04122febaa2@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> <061701c34159$4f2bc830$0200a8c0@DFNJGL21> <5.2.1.1.0.20030710121238.047d0f90@mail.comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20030710121238.047d0f90@mail.comcast.net> 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: 172.186.141.134 X-Spam-Score: -19.8 (-------------------) X-Scanner: exiscan for exim4 (http://duncanthrax.net/exiscan/) *19aiOW-0006gu-IH*3HLH/IB7upo* X-Lboro-Filtered: bill.lut.ac.uk, Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:52:00 +0100 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, 10 Jul 2003 21:52:00 +0100 (BST) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Quoting Steve Schear : > At 12:56 2003-07-03 +0000, Andrew Akehurst wrote: >>I do take your point about the ease of setting this up. However it >> would create a nice market for companies to provide proxying to common >> webmail services. >> >> They could let me log in at their website and proxy on my behalf to >> Hotmail (or whoever), passing the results back to my browser. To >> average Joe Public it could be made very easy to use by being almost >> totally transparent and it would make a nice business opportunity for >> companies to rent such services to people. > Its much more generalized and effective to just proxy all Web access, > like Anonymizer and JAP. True, but I'm not sure how comfortable the average user would be in twiddling with their proxy settings. I suppose it depends how knowledgable they are, and different companies can always provide different types of proxying service. It depends what the market wants. As long as whatever new e-mail system arises in future doesn't preclude the possibility of protecting the sender's physical identity then that's fine. Personally I'm deeply suspicious of anything that over-centralises (not just because of privacy issues, but also due to the possibility of a central point of attack/failure). After all, as long as you can trace spam back to a definite e-mail account, then all that needs to be done is to shut down or suspend that account. It's not always necessary to know the identity of the human being who sent the message in order to deal with their abuse of the system. I suppose legal action against the individual might be a possible remedy in cases of severe abuse, but then if spam were traceable via some "source tracking component" this would discourage a lot of the abuse before it occurs. I'm sure there's lots of ways to arrange things which can still allow human anonymity whilst preventing spam. > > > Now, this is fairly true, but is anonymity via webmail sufficient? ... 8< ... >> One issue is that if courts could order anonymiser services to >> surrender their logs then that might be a problem. > These services, like the mixmaster remailers, do not keep/generate > logs. Glad to hear it although I expect they need some level of logging to diagnose problems with their system. However if they don't keep them for long or don't log full message headers then that's probably OK. On the subject of legal remedies, could a court document retention order be used to force anonymiser companies to keep their logs? Even if it could though, I expect "off-shore" companies could dodge such orders due to lack of jurisdiction? Again, I consider the parallel with Swiss banking confidentiality. Of course I'm not a lawyer, so any legal insight would be helpful here. > There are many other net address obfuscation techniques. See > http://gray-world.net for a good overview of tunneling, covert channels, > network related steganographic methods. Fascinating. I feel a little less worried now, thanks. Andrew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 10 17:21:54 2003 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 RAA22258 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 17:21:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19air2-0001h7-Sn for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 17:21:29 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6ALLSxI006468 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 17:21:28 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19air2-0001fy-Oe for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 17:21:28 -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 RAA22252; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 17:21:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19air0-0007R1-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 17:21:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aiqz-0007Qy-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 17:21:25 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aiqb-0001dd-14; Thu, 10 Jul 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 19aiq2-0001ZT-7M for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 17:20:26 -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 RAA22218 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 17:20:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aipz-0007Ps-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 17:20:24 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aipy-0007Pm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 17:20:23 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (CwM2@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6ALKA2B012450; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 17:20:10 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03360; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 17:20:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <16141.55432.802525.412237@world.std.com> To: "C. Wegrzyn" Cc: Barry Shein , Dave Crocker , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. - Spam Characterization - Possible Measurements (wa s : RE: Two ways to look at spam) In-Reply-To: <3F0DCA35.5050008@garbagedump.com> References: <10938235449.20030706191326@brandenburg.com> <16137.65117.997711.701523@world.std.com> <6103832843.20030709220846@brandenburg.com> <16141.51367.222837.609036@world.std.com> <3F0DCA35.5050008@garbagedump.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 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, 10 Jul 2003 17:20:08 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On the same topic we've been getting this flood of 1-byte long mail msgs from apparently hijacked PC's which doesn't seem to have much any purpose. It's possible it's just a malfunctioning spambot zombie. It looks like the attached example. To save the obvious discussion: 1. It seems to be a dictionary attack, none of those addresses actually exist. 2. The subject varies but generally has that same pattern of some barely meaningful phrase, some spaces, and a seemingly random string. This is common among spam and has been for years. 3. It comes from presumably infected broadband hosts. 4. So what distinguishes it mostly is the one-byte (empty) message. 5. It's possible it's just probing for legit addresses but the return address doesn't seem like it'll go anywhere so who'll hear the bounce? =09 -b Queue entry: RAA29529 1 Thu Jul 10 17:13 (data file just is a newline) queue file: V2 T1057871635 K1057871748 N1 P644 I128/1063/176 MUser unknown Fb $rSMTP $snytimes.com $_bzq-218-16-158.cablep.bezeqint.net [81.218.16.158] S C: RPFD: C: RPFD: C: RPFD: C: RPFD: C: RPFD: C: RPFD: H?P?Return-Path: HReceived: from nytimes.com (bzq-218-16-158.cablep.bezeqint.net [81.218= .16.158]) =09by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA29529; =09Thu, 10 Jul 2003 17:13:55 -0400 (EDT) HMessage-ID: HFrom: "Jack Davison" HTo: jsingh4@world.std.com, jsingh5@world.std.com, jsingh6@world.std.co= m, jsingh7@world.std.com, jsingh8@world.std.com, jsingh9@world.std= .com, jsingh@world.std.com, jsiegel9@world.std.com, jsiegel@world.std= .com, jsilva7@world.std.com HSubject: legal action will be taken n7kmj32oyzc8 HDate: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:27:05 +0000 HMIME-Version: 1.0 HX-Priority: 3 HX-MSMail-Priority: Normal HX-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 HX-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 HContent-Type: text/html HContent-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit . --=20 -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWor= ld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WR= LD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *o= o* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 10 18:28:42 2003 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 SAA25620 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:28:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ajti-00078Q-3E for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:28:18 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6AMSI5a027327 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:28:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ajth-000765-9r for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:28:17 -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 SAA25597; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:28:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ajte-000066-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:28:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ajtd-000063-00; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:28:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ajtR-0006ux-C9; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:28:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ajtH-0006um-0V for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:27:51 -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 SAA25587 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:27:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ajtE-00005o-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:27:48 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ajtD-00005l-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:27:47 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19ajtD-00066u-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 23:27:47 +0100 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.7] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 82.69.7.27 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, 10 Jul 2003 23:27:47 +0100 > > > I believe that systems for sorting/blocking/handling email are inherently > a > proposed defenition of what spam is. They have their own defenitions of > what > spam is because of what they block. therefore in that context any system > is > self consistent in what it percieves to be spam, and what it blocks. If a > filter does it's best, and the mechanism for filtering is known, then i > feel > it would be compliant with the statement above. > This is an interesting point. But remember, "the system" must include the receivers *intentions*. > Thus when you choose a system to block/filter mail you should ensure that > the defenition that system provides is similar to your own. Any "non > spam" > that didn't go through would then be caused by a missunderstanding of the > defenition that the system implies. This may be true in a narrow sense. Logical, but unreasonable :-) If I employ an imperfect agent which estimates the probability that a message is unwanted and rejects those exceeding some threshold, I am not asserting that I "don't want" the messages that are false positives. I understand that the system isn't perfect. I do want my messages. I need to know what I can do to get them. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 11 06:31:42 2003 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 GAA24146 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:31:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19avBM-0004Gz-J8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:31:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6BAVGnf016422 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:31:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19avBM-0004Gn-Ez for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:31:16 -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 GAA24133; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:31:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19avBI-0004UL-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:31:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19avBI-0004UH-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:31:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19avB7-0004Ew-N8; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:31:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19avAf-0004Bo-Rc for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:30:33 -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 GAA24103 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:30:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19avAb-0004Tp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:30:30 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19avAb-0004Tm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:30:29 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (dyn-64-209.tor.dial.tht.net [134.22.64.209]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4972B3695C for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:30:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:30:19 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through Message-ID: <20030711063019.A1174@m433> References: <3F0AB06A.2080207@garbagedump.com> <20030710061318.C1266@m433> <3F0D523C.4040208@garbagedump.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: <3F0D523C.4040208@garbagedump.com>; from wegrzyn@garbagedump.com on Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 07:47:08AM -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, 11 Jul 2003 06:30:19 -0400 On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 07:47:08AM -0400, C. Wegrzyn wrote > > Walter Dnes wrote: > > >On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 07:52:10AM -0400, C. Wegrzyn wrote > > > >>I might suggest something slightly different: why not have it > >>delivered and marked as SPAM in the Subject line? In this way at > >>least I can check to see if it really is spam? I'm afraid that if it > >>is returned and we have false positives some mail might be returned > >>that I do want to see. > >> > >> > > > > a) Why would I want to wade through 15 megabytes of spam after not > > reading my mail for a few days ? > > > > b) My inbox may be the *TARGET* of 15 megs of spam, but it can only > > hold 10 megabytes in total... oops. > > > > > Because detecting spam isn't exact. I can get the number down - to a > mere handful - but I know for certain that I have seen email from this > list be tagged as SPAM on my client. There was some feature in it that > classified it as spam...until I trained the system I would have lost > them all... Welcome to... Walter's 1st (f)law of content-based spam detection; You can *NOT* use content-based spam detection against email from a mailing list that discusses spam. Think about it for a minute. On any spam-discussion mailing list, it is on topic to show examples of spam. If a spam-detector is working properly, it *WILL* detect the spam-samples, and flag the spam-discussion email as spam. Corallary 1 Content-based spam detection is imperfect, but if you *INSIST* on using it, the best approach requires that you... a) absolutely whitelist any spam-discussion mailing-lists b) do *NOT* include emails from spam-discussion mailing-lists in the filter's "learning" mode. Item a) is obvious. Item b) becomes obvious with a little thought. By including the spam-discussion list, and its spam samples, in your "not-spam" corpus, you pollute the "not-spam" database, and encourage the filter to accept email that contains spammy content. Walter's 2nd (f)law of content-based spam detection; Even 100% correct (0% false positives and 0% false negatives) content- based spam detection that properly flags 14 megabytes of spam and 1 megabyte of non-spam is useless given an inbox with 5 or 10 megabytes of capacity. Think about it for a minute, If your inbox can hold 5 or 10 megabytes total, enough spam can fill it up, and cause legitimate email to be bounced/rejected due to insufficient disk space. As you can tell, I use an MTA-based approach that blocks, rather than accepts-and-tags, email considered to be spam. In addition to avoiding the 2 (f)laws of content-based spam detection, it doesn't contribute to the mailbombing of innocent 3rd parties whose addresses have been forged spammers. -- 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 Jul 11 06:37:31 2003 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 GAA24237 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:37:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19avH0-0004zH-OV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:37:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6BAb6Gn019165 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:37:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19avH0-0004z2-Ih for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:37:06 -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 GAA24206; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:36:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19avGv-0004Vj-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:37:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19avGu-0004Vg-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:37:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19avGv-0004vO-2N; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:37:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19avG1-0004pL-FN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:36:05 -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 GAA24192 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:36:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19avFx-0004VR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:36:01 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19avFw-0004VN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:36:00 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (dyn-64-209.tor.dial.tht.net [134.22.64.209]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1D472369A4 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:34:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:34:15 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through Message-ID: <20030711063415.B1174@m433> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030710004252.03746758@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: <5.2.0.9.2.20030710004252.03746758@solidmatrix.com>; from research@solidmatrix.com on Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 12:42:53AM -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, 11 Jul 2003 06:34:15 -0400 On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 12:42:53AM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote > Going back to the original question > (https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg06391.html): > > "Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages > reach their intended recipients." > > Am I correct in assuming that the overall opinion of the group seems > to be that this statement cannot be part of the requirements? Correct. It's simply not possible in the real world. Imagine a constitutional amendmant that said no court system can impose jail terms, fines, or other penalties unleass it could 100% guarantee that no innocent person would *EVER* be convicted. All criminals would go free. There have been observations and explanatory comments from others that I would summarize as follows... - The risk-reward ratio should be the recipient's decision, i.e. informed consent. This implies that individuals should be able to customize their filters... a) Spammers should not be able to dictate to individuals any restrictions on their spam filters/blocks. b) Similarly, ISP-wide one-size-fits-all rules don't work, except against the most egregious and foolhardy spammers. One exception is that ISPs should be able to firewall/null-route and otherwise block systems that put excessive demands on the ISPs' resources, which threaten the integrity of the IPS's inbound-email system. - In order to get informed consent, some form of reject-logs should be available to the end-user on a regular basis so that users have the opportunity to monitor their filter's effectiveness. E.g. I get a monthly log extract from clss.net listing all transactions blocked by my personal blocking rules. - Informing sender of non-delivery is a thorny issue, due to scum who forge addresses of innocent third parties as the source. Strict compliance with rfc's can result in the mailbombing of those innocent third parties. Doing the blocking at the MTA and terminating the SMTP session with an appropriate 5XX message is the preferred solution. - While accepting-and-tagging suspected spam is technically rfc-compliant, it can result in email being received and not read if the user doesn't feel like reading tagged emails. This is effectively the same as dropping without sending a reject message or bounce. -- 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 Jul 11 06:40:29 2003 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 GAA24271 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:40:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19avJs-0005RW-Eq for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:40:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6BAe49D020916 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:40:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19avJs-0005RH-9b for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:40:04 -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 GAA24261; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:39:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19avJo-0004WV-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:40:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19avJn-0004WS-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:39:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19avJp-0005OH-Hr; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:40:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19avJ3-0005Nc-Fl for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:39:13 -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 GAA24258 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:39:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19avIz-0004WN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:39:09 -0400 Received: from mxsmta01.inithost.com ([209.235.30.103] helo=mxsmta01.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19avIy-0004WK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:39:08 -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 <20030711104108.CIHE6624.mxsmta01.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com> for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:41:08 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0E93D8.4070101@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/20030710 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" References: <3F0DBA94.6020401@garbagedump.com> In-Reply-To: <3F0DBA94.6020401@garbagedump.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Slowing down spammers - thoughts? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 11 Jul 2003 06:39:20 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've been giving more thought to how to slow down spamming. It seems we should just follow 7.3 of RFC2821 - return either 250 or 252 to VRFY and EXPN commands. In this way the sender can't find out if someone is really on a system. Second I would kick back a 551 to every message being sent by a domain/user I don't recognize or wanted to reject as SPAM. In the former case I would send the email to the real recipient allowing them to decide what to do with it. I the latter case I would just toss it or fill in the subject with SPAM:. Thoughts? Chuck Wegrzyn _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 11 09:19:51 2003 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 JAA28505 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:19:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19axo0-0000k6-LA for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:19:25 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6BDJKf4002853 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:19:20 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19axo0-0000jw-ER for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:19:20 -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 JAA28496; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:19:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19axny-0005ao-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:19:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19axny-0005al-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:19:18 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19axng-0000hl-Jc; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:19:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19axnN-0000hZ-3r for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:18:41 -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 JAA28481 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:18:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19axnL-0005aQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:18:39 -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 19axnK-0005aN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:18:38 -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 h6BDIaEm003474 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:18:37 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3F0E93D8.4070101@garbagedump.com> References: <3F0DBA94.6020401@garbagedump.com> <3F0E93D8.4070101@garbagedump.com> To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" From: Bill Cole Subject: Re: [Asrg] Slowing down spammers - thoughts? 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, 11 Jul 2003 09:18:32 -0400 At 6:39 AM -0400 7/11/03, C. Wegrzyn wrote: >I've been giving more thought to how to slow down spamming. It seems >we should just follow 7.3 of RFC2821 - return either 250 or 252 to >VRFY and EXPN commands. In this way the sender can't find out if >someone is really on a system. I don't know what sort of mail servers you work with, but the ones I do see insignificant amounts of VRFY and EXPN requests and already return the same meaningless responses for all such queries regardless of their arguments. This has been common practice for many years. RFC2821 was written to describe existing practice more than it was to recommend new security tactics. >Second I would kick back a 551 to every message being sent by a >domain/user I don't recognize or wanted to reject as SPAM. In the >former case I would send the email to the real recipient allowing >them to decide what to do with it. 1. If you kick back a 5xx code of any sort to any mail, you have decided 'what to do with it' permanently and irrevocably. 2. Any system that generates a message to the recipient for each message detected as spam is at least as bad as the spam for the recipients behind it. In any case, this sort of thing is well-established practice. The only utility I see in discussing details of response codes to various conditions would be to standardize them for various meanings in the area of spam. I may be misunderstanding the current state of IETF/IRTF affairs, but I think that's someone else's job. [2] >I the latter case I would just toss it or fill in the subject with SPAM:. Modification of existing headers by an MTA for any reason other than address re-writing is fundamentally wrong.[1] Adding headers (as SpamAssassin does) makes far more sense and prevents multiple such strategies from colliding with each others' efforts. There are certainly practical arguments for doing the conceptually wrong thing given the shortcomings of the world's dominant worm transmission vector^W^W^W desktop mail client, but it would be a bad precedent for an IRTF process to accommodate ephemeral and easily overcome shortcomings at the cost of making a 'hack' recommendation like subject line mangling. [1] Many have disagreed with that exception, but between tradition and pragmatic concerns it is hard to really swear off that arguably bad habit. I think the battle was lost when the revival of sendmail with v8 kept header address rewriting alive. [2] It's also arguably not all that useful. Many sites already have concerns with using 5.7.x extended status codes because they reveal policy detail to parties believed to be malicious. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 11 09:41:38 2003 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 JAA29129 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:41:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ay95-0002sb-Sa for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:41:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6BDf72B011063 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:41:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ay95-0002sM-PO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:41:07 -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 JAA29123; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:41:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ay93-0005lF-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:41:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ay93-0005lC-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:41:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ay8y-0002qT-UR; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:41:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ay8f-0002q2-HP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:40:41 -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 JAA29109 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:40:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ay8d-0005l4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:40:39 -0400 Received: from mxsmta01.inithost.com ([209.235.30.103] helo=mxsmta01.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ay8d-0005l1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:40:39 -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 <20030711134237.DURA6624.mxsmta01.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:42:37 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0EBE60.4060202@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/20030710 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, af, sq, ar, ar-dz, ar-bh, ar-eg, ar-iq, ar-jo, ar-kw, ar-lb, ar-ly, ar-ma, ar-om, ar-qa, ar-sa, ar-sy, ar-tn, ar-ae, ar-ye, hy, ast, eu, be, bs, bg, ca, zh, zh-cn, zh-hk, zh-sg, zh-tw, hr, cs, da, nl, nl-be, undefined, en-au, en-bz, en-ca, en-ie, en-jm, en-nz, en-ph, en-za, en-tt, en-gb, undefined, en-zw, eo, et, fo, fi, fr, fr-be, fr-ca, fr-fr, fr-lu, fr-mc, fr-ch, gl, ka, de, de-at, de-de, de-li, de-lu, de-ch, el, he, hu, is, id, ga, it, it-ch, ja, ko, ko-kp, ko-kr, lv, lt, mk-mk, ms, no, nb, nn, pl, pt, pt-br, ro, ru, gd, sr, sk, sl, es, es-ar, es-bo, es-cl, es-co, es-cr, es-do, es-ec, es-sv, es-gt, es-hn, es-mx, es-ni, es-pa, es-py, es-pe, es-pr, es-es, es-uy, es-ve, sv, sv-fi, th, tr, uk, vi, cy, xh, yi, zu MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bill Cole CC: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Slowing down spammers - thoughts? References: <3F0DBA94.6020401@garbagedump.com> <3F0E93D8.4070101@garbagedump.com> 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, 11 Jul 2003 09:40:48 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As I said in my original email I was looking for solutions to slow them down. You seemed to think I was suggesting examining or tightening up the return codes. Nothing code be further from the truth. I do believe that we shouldn't leave a stone unturned to find answers for halting spam. Chuck Bill Cole wrote: > At 6:39 AM -0400 7/11/03, C. Wegrzyn wrote: > >> I've been giving more thought to how to slow down spamming. It seems >> we should just follow 7.3 of RFC2821 - return either 250 or 252 to >> VRFY and EXPN commands. In this way the sender can't find out if >> someone is really on a system. > > > I don't know what sort of mail servers you work with, but the ones I > do see insignificant amounts of VRFY and EXPN requests and already > return the same meaningless responses for all such queries regardless > of their arguments. This has been common practice for many years. > RFC2821 was written to describe existing practice more than it was to > recommend new security tactics. > >> Second I would kick back a 551 to every message being sent by a >> domain/user I don't recognize or wanted to reject as SPAM. In the >> former case I would send the email to the real recipient allowing >> them to decide what to do with it. > > > 1. If you kick back a 5xx code of any sort to any mail, you have > decided 'what to do with it' permanently and irrevocably. > > 2. Any system that generates a message to the recipient for each > message detected as spam is at least as bad as the spam for the > recipients behind it. > > In any case, this sort of thing is well-established practice. The only > utility I see in discussing details of response codes to various > conditions would be to standardize them for various meanings in the > area of spam. I may be misunderstanding the current state of IETF/IRTF > affairs, but I think that's someone else's job. [2] > >> I the latter case I would just toss it or fill in the subject with >> SPAM:. > > > Modification of existing headers by an MTA for any reason other than > address re-writing is fundamentally wrong.[1] Adding headers (as > SpamAssassin does) makes far more sense and prevents multiple such > strategies from colliding with each others' efforts. There are > certainly practical arguments for doing the conceptually wrong thing > given the shortcomings of the world's dominant worm transmission > vector^W^W^W desktop mail client, but it would be a bad precedent for > an IRTF process to accommodate ephemeral and easily overcome > shortcomings at the cost of making a 'hack' recommendation like > subject line mangling. > > [1] Many have disagreed with that exception, but between tradition and > pragmatic concerns it is hard to really swear off that arguably bad > habit. I think the battle was lost when the revival of sendmail with > v8 kept header address rewriting alive. > > [2] It's also arguably not all that useful. Many sites already have > concerns with using 5.7.x extended status codes because they reveal > policy detail to parties believed to be malicious. > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 11 11:31:11 2003 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 LAA03733 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:31:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19azr9-0002f0-Ua for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:30:44 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6BFUhns010222 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:30:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19azr9-0002en-Rl for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:30:43 -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 LAA03685; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:30:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19azr8-0006Xz-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:30:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19azr7-0006Xw-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:30:41 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19azqT-0002bP-A8; Fri, 11 Jul 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 19azq5-0002ag-75 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:29:37 -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 LAA03615 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:29:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19azq3-0006Wa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:29:35 -0400 Received: from tarbolton.demon.co.uk ([212.229.119.215] helo=killerbees.co.uk) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19azq1-0006WM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:29:33 -0400 Received: from mailtest ([192.168.0.2]) by killerbees.co.uk (JAMES SMTP Server 3.0a1) with SMTP ID 112 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:45:21 +0100 (BST) From: "Danny Angus" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: The Solution To Spam - The First Response (Ken Hirsch) 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 (9.0.2910.0) 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, 11 Jul 2003 16:33:04 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I hate to get drawn into this nonsense again, but I couldn't let this pass without making what I hope is an intelligent general comment; > It only makes sense to raise the current pricing > schemes to remove illigitimate companies from the Internet, leaving only > those with significant investments in the web business free to win back > public support. First, I'm unconvinced that the suggestion that the one "raise the current pricing" implies the other "remove illigitimate companies", and that by the implication "those with significant investments" are only good guys. > By rasing the 'bar' of initial expenditure verus return we could > eliminate a > significant porportion of Internet fraud. Secondly, I fear that this would indiscrimiately eliminate a significant proportion of the grass roots use of the internet which has so far characterised many of the best examples of its cultural development and in my opinion provided much of the network's real value to individuals (c.f. corporations). >'GIEIS' will employ this > technique as well as others. In these discussions should we not be trying allow existing legitimate use to continue unhindered? I believe that we should be trying to detect and prevent abuse, not applying arbitrary demographic filters. Suggesting that spam can be reduced by making it difficult for less wealthy organisations to offer email transport is as unacceptable to me as would be this group proposing that spam could be reduced if we took the simple step of preventing access by IP addresses registered to certain parts of Asia. To do either would be technically correct, but surely neither is socially acceptable as a long term solution? d. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 11 12:09:37 2003 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 MAA04614 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:09:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b0SL-00068o-JQ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:09:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6BG99px023605 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:09:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b0SL-00068e-1w for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:09:09 -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 MAA04610; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:09:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b0SJ-0006nA-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:09:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b0SJ-0006n7-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:09:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b0SD-00062n-Qs; Fri, 11 Jul 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 19b0Ru-00062S-TZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:08:42 -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 MAA04603 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:08:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b0Rt-0006my-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:08:41 -0400 Received: from bay2-f117.bay2.hotmail.com ([65.54.247.117] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b0Rs-0006mh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:08:41 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:08:05 -0700 Received: from 195.17.73.56 by by2fd.bay2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:08:04 GMT X-Originating-IP: [195.17.73.56] X-Originating-Email: [kmn_asgr@hotmail.com] From: "Kurt Magnusson" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. - Spam Characterization - Possible Measurements (was: RE: Two way) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jul 2003 16:08:05.0353 (UTC) FILETIME=[9CA2FD90:01C347C6] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 11 Jul 2003 14:08:04 -0200 C. Wegrzyn wrote: > >This was also the point of my email about the two kinds ........ >(what spammer would tell you how to get back at them). But this is the Catch22 of spamming, they do want you to get back to them, but through the methods they device, not by mail or regular phone. ........... >I think Barry and I both missed a third kind as well. There are some that >actually send you an email with some offer very attractive and an email >address. Of course the offer is bogus - all they want you to do is click a >URL on the email page that takes you back to some site. The purpose? To >verify that you really are there. Is this a rogue spammer or not? No, this is today a far more usual way to verify the user than say last year, since most users do not understand that the strange randomized URL is their personal spam ID. Remember, on the web you'r anonymous, if no id in the browser ;-). Within a year I think, 50 % of all verification will be done this way. There as ready software at Freshmeat for it. But this URL is _also_ the ID of the spammer, much more dependent than his/her fake addresses or the servers used, for this is a server used by the spammer and therefore a server that pop up in a large amount of "independent" spams. Most likely, the real spams point to the same server, maybe under a different name, but the same non the less. _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 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 Fri Jul 11 12:31:47 2003 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 MAA05114 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:31:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b0nn-0008KJ-BW for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:31:21 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6BGVJUn032003 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:31:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b0nn-0008Ju-8Y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:31:19 -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 MAA05083; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:31:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b0nl-0006w3-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:31:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b0nl-0006w0-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:31:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b0nV-00084o-FR; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:31:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b0n4-00083n-M8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:30:34 -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 MAA05039 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:30:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b0n3-0006vT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:30:33 -0400 Received: from 000-234-308.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.154.121] helo=68.27.154.121 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b0n0-0006vQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:30:32 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030711122426.00b30170@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 Subject: [Asrg] 0.General - News Article - NYT Reports Porn Spam Hijacking Network Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 11 Jul 2003 12:30:07 -0400 Just came across this SlashDot story (http://slashdot.org/articles/03/07/11/133232.shtml) referencing a New Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/11/technology/11HACK.htm(l) that discusses how thousands of computers were hijacked and used for sending porn spam. This story is also available at News.com (http://news.com.com/2100-12_3-1024967.html). Some quotes: --------snip---------- More than 1,000 unsuspecting Internet users around the world have recently had their computers hijacked by hackers who computer security experts say are using them for pornographic Web sites. The hijacked computers, which are chosen by the hackers apparently because they have high-speed connections to the Internet, are secretly loaded with software that makes them send explicit Web pages advertising pornographic sites and offer to sign visitors up as customers The hackers operating the ring direct traffic to each hijacked computer in their network for a few minutes at a time, quickly rotating through a large number. Some are also used to send spam e-mail messages to boost traffic to the sites. By hiding behind a ring of machines, the senders can cloak their identity while helping to solve one of the biggest problems for purveyors of pornography and spam: getting shut down by Internet service providers who receive complaints about the raunchy material. The computer ring is the latest in an evolution of attacks that allow creators of spam and illicit computer schemes to use other people's computers as accomplices. For several years, senders of spam have relied upon a vestigial element of the Internet mail infrastructure known as "open relay" to use Internet servers as conduits for their spam. As network administrators have gradually shut down the open relay networks, spam senders have used viruses to plant similar capabilities on home and business computers. --------snip---------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 11 12:41:47 2003 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 MAA05393 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:41:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b0xR-0001HW-4m for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:41:21 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6BGfHRi004806 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:41:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b0xQ-0001E6-OA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:41:16 -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 MAA05381; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:41:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b0xO-00072R-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:41:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b0xN-00072N-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:41:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b0xC-000162-Fe; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:41:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b0wv-00015M-3P for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:40:45 -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 MAA05359 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:40:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b0wt-000720-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:40:43 -0400 Received: from 000-234-308.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.154.121] helo=68.27.154.121 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b0wq-00071p-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:40:41 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030711123914.00bc1758@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Andrew Akehurst , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Maintaining Anonymity in an Authenticated System In-Reply-To: <1057870320.3f0dd1f04502e@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20030710121238.047d0f90@mail.comcast.net> <061701c34159$4f2bc830$0200a8c0@DFNJGL21> <1057231407.3f04122febaa2@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> <061701c34159$4f2bc830$0200a8c0@DFNJGL21> <5.2.1.1.0.20030710121238.047d0f90@mail.comcast.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 11 Jul 2003 12:40:22 -0400 At 09:52 PM 7/10/2003 +0100, Andrew Akehurst wrote: >Quoting Steve Schear : > > > At 12:56 2003-07-03 +0000, Andrew Akehurst wrote: > > >>I do take your point about the ease of setting this up. However it > >> would create a nice market for companies to provide proxying to common > >> webmail services. > >> > >> They could let me log in at their website and proxy on my behalf to > >> Hotmail (or whoever), passing the results back to my browser. To > >> average Joe Public it could be made very easy to use by being almost > >> totally transparent and it would make a nice business opportunity for > >> companies to rent such services to people. > > > Its much more generalized and effective to just proxy all Web access, > > like Anonymizer and JAP. > >True, but I'm not sure how comfortable the average user would be in twiddling >with their proxy settings. I suppose it depends how knowledgable they are, >and >different companies can always provide different types of proxying >service. It >depends what the market wants. > >As long as whatever new e-mail system arises in future doesn't preclude the >possibility of protecting the sender's physical identity then that's fine. >Personally I'm deeply suspicious of anything that over-centralises (not just >because of privacy issues, but also due to the possibility of a central point >of attack/failure). > >After all, as long as you can trace spam back to a definite e-mail account, >then all that needs to be done is to shut down or suspend that account. It's >not always necessary to know the identity of the human being who sent the >message in order to deal with their abuse of the system. > >I suppose legal action against the individual might be a possible remedy in >cases of severe abuse, but then if spam were traceable via some "source >tracking component" this would discourage a lot of the abuse before it >occurs. >I'm sure there's lots of ways to arrange things which can still allow human >anonymity whilst preventing spam. > > > > > Now, this is fairly true, but is anonymity via webmail sufficient? > >... 8< ... > > >> One issue is that if courts could order anonymiser services to > >> surrender their logs then that might be a problem. > > > These services, like the mixmaster remailers, do not keep/generate > > logs. > >Glad to hear it although I expect they need some level of logging to diagnose >problems with their system. However if they don't keep them for long or don't >log full message headers then that's probably OK. > >On the subject of legal remedies, could a court document retention order be >used to force anonymiser companies to keep their logs? Even if it could >though, >I expect "off-shore" companies could dodge such orders due to lack of >jurisdiction? Again, I consider the parallel with Swiss banking >confidentiality. Of course I'm not a lawyer, so any legal insight would be >helpful here. > > > There are many other net address obfuscation techniques. See > > http://gray-world.net for a good overview of tunneling, covert channels, > > network related steganographic methods. The requirements document mentions the issue of anonymity (https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05084.html): ----snip------ 2.14 Accountability and Anonymity Proposals MUST address issues of accountability and anonymity of MTS users, specifically message senders. 2.14.1 Rationale: One of the most pernicious issues involving [spam] are related to accountability of the [spammers] who provide invalid or simulated information in order to "game the system" 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 'anonymization' services that currently exist. Designers must consider the impact of accountability by a proposal on these systems and address the issues related to preserving anonymity for [legitimate] uses. ----snip------ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 11 12:41:53 2003 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 MAA05411 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:41:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b0xR-0001Io-GZ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:41:27 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6BGfHcX004903 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:41:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b0xQ-0001FC-R2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:41:16 -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 MAA05380; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:41:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b0xO-00072U-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:41:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b0xO-00072O-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:41:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b0xC-00015u-2G; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:41:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b0wf-000159-UE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:40:29 -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 MAA05350 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:40:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b0we-00071m-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:40:28 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b0wd-00071A-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:40:27 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-8.00) id A8B3273C012A; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:41:23 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:45:54 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <897837a5-c3bc-4f8c-8ee9-a812ff5f2764> 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] Slowing down spammers - thoughts? X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Slowing down spammers - thoughts? Thread-Index: AcNHsmJYmoNkhOiNTlyEljpwZJM8FQAFnESg From: "Peter Kay" To: "C. Wegrzyn" , "Bill Cole" Cc: 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, 11 Jul 2003 06:41:26 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I don't know how you define "slowing down" but we've effectively deployed a technology at http://www.titankey.com using early verions of the "Recipient-Defined Consent" approach that is slowing bubbling through this group. Users can define one or more email addresses and a policy (i.e. Consent) of how that email address can be used. This policy may include Challenge/Response, at the user's option. Users then use these email addresses as they see fit. If an email address is not used according to the policy defined by the user, The Titan Key Servers respond with a 550 No Such User before the DATA command. This effectively solves the spam bandwidth problem (contents are never transmitted) as well as rendering the recipient email address as useless. In addition, some (not all) bulk-emailers stop sending bulk email after receiving the 550 which has the desireable side-effect of reducing spam attackes over time, hence the "slowing down" you asked about.=20 I've posted detailed 3 spreadsheets to this group before that have shown the rate of "spam attacks" over time. One of them shows an actual decrease in spam attacks over time. The 2 others show a slight increase. I'd love to see how this slight increase compares w/ the average Internet-wide increase in spam as I'd be willing to bet $1 that we have in fact "slowed down" spammers when you compare the grown of spam attacks to these test accounts vs. the growth of spam attacks overall. Spreadsheets are at: http://www.titankey.com/misc/logs/logLes.xls http://www.titankey.com/misc/logs/logScot.xls http://www.titankey.com/misc/logs/logPK.xls Have fun. Peter Kay, President TitanKey Software The only technology that stops spam BEFORE it's even sent =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: C. Wegrzyn [mailto:wegrzyn@garbagedump.com]=20 > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 3:41 AM > To: Bill Cole > Cc: 'asrg@ietf.org' > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Slowing down spammers - thoughts? >=20 >=20 > As I said in my original email I was looking for solutions to=20 > slow them=20 > down. You seemed to think I was suggesting examining or tightening up=20 > the return codes. Nothing code be further from the truth. >=20 > I do believe that we shouldn't leave a stone unturned to find answers=20 > for halting spam. >=20 > Chuck >=20 > Bill Cole wrote: >=20 > > At 6:39 AM -0400 7/11/03, C. Wegrzyn wrote: > > > >> I've been giving more thought to how to slow down=20 > spamming. It seems > >> we should just follow 7.3 of RFC2821 - return either 250 or 252 to=20 > >> VRFY and EXPN commands. In this way the sender can't find out if=20 > >> someone is really on a system. > > > > > > I don't know what sort of mail servers you work with, but the ones I > > do see insignificant amounts of VRFY and EXPN requests and already=20 > > return the same meaningless responses for all such queries=20 > regardless=20 > > of their arguments. This has been common practice for many years.=20 > > RFC2821 was written to describe existing practice more than=20 > it was to=20 > > recommend new security tactics. > > > >> Second I would kick back a 551 to every message being sent by a > >> domain/user I don't recognize or wanted to reject as SPAM. In the=20 > >> former case I would send the email to the real recipient allowing=20 > >> them to decide what to do with it. > > > > > > 1. If you kick back a 5xx code of any sort to any mail, you have > > decided 'what to do with it' permanently and irrevocably. > > > > 2. Any system that generates a message to the recipient for each > > message detected as spam is at least as bad as the spam for the=20 > > recipients behind it. > > > > In any case, this sort of thing is well-established=20 > practice. The only > > utility I see in discussing details of response codes to various=20 > > conditions would be to standardize them for various meanings in the=20 > > area of spam. I may be misunderstanding the current state=20 > of IETF/IRTF=20 > > affairs, but I think that's someone else's job. [2] > > > >> I the latter case I would just toss it or fill in the subject with > >> SPAM:. > > > > > > Modification of existing headers by an MTA for any reason other than > > address re-writing is fundamentally wrong.[1] Adding headers (as=20 > > SpamAssassin does) makes far more sense and prevents multiple such=20 > > strategies from colliding with each others' efforts. There are=20 > > certainly practical arguments for doing the conceptually=20 > wrong thing=20 > > given the shortcomings of the world's dominant worm transmission=20 > > vector^W^W^W desktop mail client, but it would be a bad=20 > precedent for=20 > > an IRTF process to accommodate ephemeral and easily overcome=20 > > shortcomings at the cost of making a 'hack' recommendation like=20 > > subject line mangling. > > > > [1] Many have disagreed with that exception, but between=20 > tradition and > > pragmatic concerns it is hard to really swear off that arguably bad=20 > > habit. I think the battle was lost when the revival of=20 > sendmail with=20 > > v8 kept header address rewriting alive. > > > > [2] It's also arguably not all that useful. Many sites already have > > concerns with using 5.7.x extended status codes because they reveal=20 > > policy detail to parties believed to be malicious. > > >=20 >=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 Fri Jul 11 12:48:34 2003 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 MAA05638 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:48:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b144-0001eN-1F for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:48:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6BGm7n9006337 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:48:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b143-0001e8-Pz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:48:07 -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 MAA05598; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:48:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b141-000768-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:48:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b141-000765-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:48:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b13x-0001bh-RO; Fri, 11 Jul 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 19b13O-0001ax-QE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:47:26 -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 MAA05564 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:47:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b13M-00075H-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:47:24 -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 19b13L-00075D-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:47:23 -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 19b12L-0001kI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:46:21 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0.General - News Article - NYT Reports Porn Spam Hijacking Network In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:30:07 EDT." <5.2.0.9.2.20030711122426.00b30170@pop.pocketmail.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, 11 Jul 2003 12:46:21 -0400 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > --------snip---------- > More than 1,000 unsuspecting Internet users around the world have recently > had their computers hijacked by hackers who computer security experts say > are using them for pornographic Web sites. In addition, the number of bounces I've received about "a virus was detected in your message to FOO" has increased significantly in the past week or so. > The hijacked computers, which are chosen by the hackers apparently because > they have high-speed connections to the Internet, are secretly loaded with > software that makes them send explicit Web pages advertising pornographic > sites and offer to sign visitors up as customers And how, exactly, can the recipient tell this spam from messages sent out by mobile users who similarly make direct connections? There's the content, but content filters have their own issues. Unless the propogation of these malware programs is quenched, I think this incident can be taken as the start of the end for mobile users of naked, unauthenticated, unverifiable SMTP. There are other methods by which they can send email, and those methods will help protect against this kind of spam attack, at least. While spammers can adapt and change their methods, I think that other than willingly cooperating spam houses, this method of co-opting thousands of random computers is probably the simplest and most effective way of sending spam. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 11 13:46:54 2003 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 NAA07849 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:46:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b1yV-0006EY-F2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:46:27 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6BHkRRi023956 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:46:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b1yV-0006EJ-CD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:46:27 -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 NAA07836; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:46:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b1yT-0007my-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:46:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b1yS-0007mv-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:46:24 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b1y4-0005wj-V3; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:46:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b1xi-0005wJ-1n for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:45:38 -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 NAA07823 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:45:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b1xf-0007mV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:45:35 -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 19b1xe-0007mS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:45:34 -0400 Received: from dino ([66.120.64.130]) by magic1.org for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:43:10 -0700 Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Scott Nelson Subject: Re: [Asrg] Slowing down spammers - thoughts? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 11 Jul 2003 10:46:00 -0700 At 06:39 AM 7/11/03 -0400, C. Wegrzyn wrote: >I've been giving more thought to how to slow down spamming. It seems we >should just follow 7.3 of RFC2821 - return either 250 or 252 to VRFY and >EXPN commands. In this way the sender can't find out if someone is >really on a system. > First, the advice given in RFC 2821 section 7.3 isn't quite right. If you don't support EXPN then it shouldn't be in the EHLO response, and the correct error code is "503 5.5.1 Invalid command". 252 would only be correct if you make the decision to allow EXPN on a case by case basis, after the EHLO - for example, if you allowed EXPN only after AUTH. As far as I know, no one does that. Second, most systems that check, check using RCPT TO instead of VRFY. (And most incorrectly assume that anything other than 250 means non-existent, failing on "451 4.2.2 mailbox full", but that's another topic.) With the exception of me testing the command, I haven't seen a single VRFY command in my logs, ever. Third, I have seen some pretty convincing evidence that if a spammer /thinks/ an address is valid, they will hammer the mailbox forever. (Not all spammers of course, but some.) No amount of "550 5.1.1 No such user" will dissuade them. If spammers actually checked with VRFY, returning 252 to all such queries would risk /increasing/ the amount of spam attempted. But since no one uses VRFY anyway, that's moot. Forth, Is there any evidence that hiding addresses works? Perhaps the effectiveness of address hiding should be researched. >Second I would kick back a 551 to every message being sent by a >domain/user I don't recognize or wanted to reject as SPAM. In the former >case I would send the email to the real recipient allowing them to >decide what to do with it. I the latter case I would just toss it or >fill in the subject with SPAM:. > >Thoughts? > Seems to me that you'd get a lot of false positives that way. Scott Nelson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 11 13:55:31 2003 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 NAA08265 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:55:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b26q-0007Hh-7H for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:55:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6BHt4gd027995 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:55:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b26q-0007HS-4M for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:55:04 -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 NAA08226; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:55:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b26n-00008K-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:55:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b26n-00008H-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:55:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b26m-0007Fa-RR; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:55:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b266-0007ER-1k for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:54:18 -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 NAA08203 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:54:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b263-00007i-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:54:15 -0400 Received: from [64.202.165.32] (helo=stgspamfilter2.secureserver.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b262-00006p-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:54:14 -0400 Received: (qmail 31302 invoked by uid 99); 11 Jul 2003 17:53:44 -0000 Message-ID: <20030711175344.31301.qmail@stgspamfilter2.secureserver.net> From: Jason Steiner Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through 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: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:53:44 -0700 "Walter Dnes" > > Welcome to... > > Walter's 1st (f)law of content-based spam detection; > You can *NOT* use content-based spam detection against email from a > mailing list that discusses spam. Sure you can. In fact, I do. > Think about it for a minute. On any spam-discussion mailing list, > it is on topic to show examples of spam. If a spam-detector is working > properly, it *WILL* detect the spam-samples, and flag the > spam-discussion email as spam. Think about it for a minute. If a human can distinguish between examples of spam under discussion and actual spam, then it is theoretically possible for a content-based filter to duplicate that reasoning. And it turns out to be possible in practice as well as theory. > Corallary 1 > Content-based spam detection is imperfect, but if you *INSIST* on > using it, the best approach requires that you... > a) absolutely whitelist any spam-discussion mailing-lists A whitelist *is* one way to make the distinction (after all, a human says, "This comes from a user of the ASRG list, therefore it is something I probably want.") But fuzzier methods work as well. > b) do *NOT* include emails from spam-discussion mailing-lists in the > filter's "learning" mode. To the contrary, there are still enough differences between the two that a well-designed filter can learn the difference almost as easily as it learns the difference between "normal" spam and email. Think about the headers in general, as well as the way that such example messages usually get forwarded. > Walter's 2nd (f)law of content-based spam detection; > Even 100% correct (0% false positives and 0% false negatives) > content-based spam detection that properly flags 14 megabytes of spam and 1 > megabyte of non-spam is useless given an inbox with 5 or 10 megabytes > of capacity. Now *this* is very true. However, content-based filtering can be an important part of a 2-tier anti-spam solution. Spam steals both system resources and human time. A content-based filter can address the latter, and provide information used to 'train' the source- based defenses that address the former. jason _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 11 14:07:44 2003 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 OAA08554 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:07:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b2IZ-0007d9-Ce for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:07:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6BI7BgW029325 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:07:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b2IZ-0007cu-7S for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:07:11 -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 OAA08520; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:07:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b2IV-0000Dr-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:07:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b2IU-0000Do-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:07:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b2IQ-0007Za-9a; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:07:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b2Hh-0007Xc-5m for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:06:17 -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 OAA08498 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:06:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b2Ha-0000D3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:06:10 -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 19b2HU-0000Cy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:06:04 -0400 Received: from rsbx.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.rsbx.net (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA06625 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:05:57 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0EFC85.EA64587E@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] 0.General - News Article - NYT Reports Porn Spam Hijacking Network References: 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, 11 Jul 2003 14:05:57 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alan DeKok wrote: > ... > > Unless the propogation of these malware programs is quenched, I > think this incident can be taken as the start of the end for mobile > users of naked, unauthenticated, unverifiable SMTP. There are other > methods by which they can send email, and those methods will help > protect against this kind of spam attack, at least. > > While spammers can adapt and change their methods, I think that > other than willingly cooperating spam houses, this method of co-opting > thousands of random computers is probably the simplest and most > effective way of sending spam. This is the specific problem that DRIP addresses. See http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-brand-drip-00.txt Raymond S Brand _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 11 14:18:35 2003 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 OAA09030 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:18:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b2TA-0008I7-Ea for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:18:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6BII86S031865 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:18:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b2TA-0008Hs-Aa for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:18:08 -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 OAA08991; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:18:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b2T7-0000MK-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:18:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b2T7-0000MH-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:18:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b2T2-0008Di-NZ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:18:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b2Sr-0008DR-LU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:17:49 -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 OAA08972 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:17:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b2Sp-0000Ly-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:17:47 -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 19b2So-0000Lv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:17:46 -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 19b2Rt-0001mZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:16:49 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0.General - News Article - NYT Reports Porn Spam Hijacking Network In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:05:57 EDT." <3F0EFC85.EA64587E@rsbx.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: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:16:49 -0400 Raymond S Brand wrote: > This is the specific problem that DRIP addresses. See > > http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-brand-drip-00.txt Without commenting on the rest of it: ------ 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. ------ that would be better with it as the *reverse* of the address. This allows DNS administrators to better deal with address ranges. At which point, it's very similar to: http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fecyk-dsprotocol-03.txt In addition, it suffers from the same DNS related problems as RMX, and draft-fecyk-dsprotocol-03.txt. This isn't to say it's broken, it's just imperfect. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 11 14:33:35 2003 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 OAA09773 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:33:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b2hg-0000UT-R1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:33:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6BIX8EM001879 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:33:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b2hg-0000UD-LG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:33:08 -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 OAA09755; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:33:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b2hd-0000XB-00; Fri, 11 Jul 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 19b2hd-0000X8-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:33:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b2hY-0000SM-Rv; Fri, 11 Jul 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 19b2gg-0000R7-Om for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:32:06 -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 OAA09597 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:32:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b2ge-0000Vk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:32:04 -0400 Received: from mnr1.microneil.com ([216.88.36.96]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b2gd-0000Vc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:32:03 -0400 Received: by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix, from userid 93) id 2E5A029C09B; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:31:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MicroNeil.com (mail.microneil.com [216.88.36.161]) by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE4FB29C09A for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:31:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MNR01 [216.88.36.10] by MicroNeil.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.05) id A268175D00E8; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:31:04 -0400 From: "Pete McNeil" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through Message-ID: <004a01c347da$95a5f5b0$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 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20030711175344.31301.qmail@stgspamfilter2.secureserver.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 X-Declude-Spoolname: D02680e8.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, 11 Jul 2003 14:31:03 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >-----Original Message----- >From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On >Behalf Of Jason Steiner >Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 1:54 PM >To: asrg@ietf.org >Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through >> Walter's 2nd (f)law of content-based spam detection; >> Even 100% correct (0% false positives and 0% false negatives) >> content-based spam detection that properly flags 14 >megabytes of spam >> and 1 megabyte of non-spam is useless given an inbox with 5 or 10 >> megabytes of capacity. > >Now *this* is very true. However, content-based filtering can be >an important part of a 2-tier anti-spam solution. Spam steals >both system resources and human time. A content-based filter >can address the latter, and provide information used to >'train' the source- based defenses that address the former. > >jason Absolutely, positively! Version 3 of Message Sniffer (under development) uses precisely this approach... and as it turns out it is not only possible for a content filter to train a source based filter, but it can even train itself to recognize new patters of content. I can't share results on this yet - because they are all highly experimental and otherwise meaningless, but I can tell you that the theory holds up very well in practice. One actual case I can point to: Message Sniffer has been used in at least one installation where the IP source of messages trapped by Message Sniffer (the content filter) is driven forward to an IMGate box (MTA Gateway running Postfix). In this system, the content filter captures 4-6% of spam continuously (indicating continued "learning") while the MTA Gateway box rejects the rest of the spam based on IP ACLs. Performance reports on this system have been extremely good, and as a methodology this seems to be a very scalable solution since the "expensive" content filtering load is significantly reduced while it's effects are still highly leveraged. Systems like this should do very well establishing policys for the "anonymous" case... that is: SOFT CONSENT, and SOFT DENIED CONSENT. For example, in the rejection policy for SOFT DENIED CONSENT, the REJECTION could include an action item to add an entry to the DENIED CONSENT policy by source address with an appropriate expiration. (The expiration should also be "abuse sensitive"). If consent policies can be structured in this way they will be able to provide an adaptive framework that can take advantage of any current or future technologies for detecting abuse... In the same vein, the non-abuse case can also be leveraged where consent token methodologies can be adaptive - recording new senders in the CONSENT policy automatically under special conditions so that email address changes can be accomodated without intervention. Again in this vein is the ability for a CONSENT policy to contain a provisional component for "sensing" the email that the RECEIVER sends such that automated mechanisms might be employed to add CONSENT entries as needed - that is, an "auto whitelist" feature. Even though the consent policy structure will be a standardized mechanism, there's no reason any number of services and utilities can't be employed by that consent policy provided the services are available where the policy is employed. To that end, the structure of a consent policy should be standardized in such a way that "any" available mechanism can be employed as part of the local consent model for a RECEIVER in their given environment. The additional goal of making consent policy documents portable should also be well considered. I think an IMPLEMENTATION section should be included to tie local system resources into the consent policy in a way that is platform independent. _M _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 11 15:43:25 2003 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 PAA13997 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:43:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b3nF-0006Dr-U0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:42:57 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6BJgviR023913 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:42:57 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b3nF-0006Dc-Pl for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:42:57 -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 PAA13959; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:42:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b3n9-0001Q3-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:42:51 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b3n9-0001Q0-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:42:51 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b3mL-0005vc-FT; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:42:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b3lr-0005ro-Fi for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:41:31 -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 PAA13877 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:41:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b3lp-0001Ov-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:41:29 -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 19b3lo-0001Oa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:41:29 -0400 Received: from rsbx.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.rsbx.net (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA07008 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:41:22 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0F12E2.EC641697@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] 0.General - News Article - NYT Reports Porn Spam Hijacking Network References: 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, 11 Jul 2003 15:41:22 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alan DeKok wrote: > ... > ------ > 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. > ------ > > that would be better with it as the *reverse* of the address. This > allows DNS administrators to better deal with address ranges. At > which point, it's very similar to: The representation was chosen to NOT allow trivial wildcarding to large ranges since, otherwise, the malware authors would wildcard the entire IP address space. And an observation, even large mail sites have a finite number of MTAs and those MTAs already have several individual DNS records. > > http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fecyk-dsprotocol-03.txt > > In addition, it suffers from the same DNS related problems as RMX, > and draft-fecyk-dsprotocol-03.txt. This isn't to say it's broken, > it's just imperfect. Unlike DMP, RMX, and SPF, DRIP uses the domain name from the HELO/EHLO SMTP command, the others use the domain name from the envelope FROM address. DMP, RMX, and SPF all require envelope rewriting, DRIP does not. Raymond S Brand _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 11 16:26:39 2003 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 QAA15349 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:26:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b4T5-0000CT-Gr for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:26:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6BKQBL2000764 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:26:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b4T5-0000CF-Dn for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:26:11 -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 QAA15327; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:26:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b4T3-0001r6-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:26:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b4T2-0001r3-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:26:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b4Sv-0000AK-Cj; Fri, 11 Jul 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 19b4Sf-00009h-Tt for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:25:45 -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 QAA15302 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:25:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b4Se-0001qo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:25:44 -0400 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org ([212.17.35.15]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b4Sc-0001qe-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:25:42 -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 h6BKOXH28048; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 21:24:33 +0100 Received: by jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id E186B16F10; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 21:25:28 +0100 (IST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFBE8F87B; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:25:28 -0700 (PDT) To: "Pete McNeil" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through In-Reply-To: Message from "Pete McNeil" of "Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:31:03 EDT." <004a01c347da$95a5f5b0$0a2458d8@MNR01> 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: <20030711202528.E186B16F10@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: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:25:23 -0700 Pete McNeil writes: >>Now *this* is very true. However, content-based filtering can be >>an important part of a 2-tier anti-spam solution. Spam steals >>both system resources and human time. A content-based filter >>can address the latter, and provide information used to >>'train' the source- based defenses that address the former. > >Absolutely, positively! Version 3 of Message Sniffer (under development) >uses precisely this approach... and as it turns out it is not only >possible for a content filter to train a source based filter, but it can >even train itself to recognize new patters of content. I can't share >results on this yet - because they are all highly experimental and >otherwise meaningless, but I can tell you that the theory holds up very >well in practice. SpamAssassin does this for the AWL and Bayes auto-learning components, fwiw. --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 11 17:46:03 2003 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 RAA18819 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:46:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b5hw-0006HE-RG for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:45:37 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6BLja7s024121 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:45:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b5hw-0006Gx-7K for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:45:36 -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 RAA18772; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:45:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b5hs-0002yf-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:45:33 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b5hs-0002yc-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:45:32 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b5hO-0006Dg-6P; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:45:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b5gc-0006Bk-Km for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:44:14 -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 RAA18725 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:44:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b5ga-0002xM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:44:12 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b5gZ-0002xI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:44:11 -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 h6BLi6SB027671; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:44:07 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA15221; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:44:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16143.12197.925901.224103@world.std.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0.General - News Article - NYT Reports Porn Spam Hijacking Network In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030711122426.00b30170@pop.pocketmail.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030711122426.00b30170@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: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:44:05 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, there ya go, the NY Times is technologically ahead of ASRG in recognizing what the real source of the spam problem is. -- -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 Jul 11 17:57:40 2003 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 RAA19268 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:57:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b5t7-0006sA-KU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:57:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6BLv91e026412 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:57:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b5t7-0006qg-EK for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:57:09 -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 RAA19247; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:57:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b5t3-00039h-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:57:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b5t2-00039e-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:57:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b5sz-0006ol-SV; Fri, 11 Jul 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 19b5s6-0006iy-45 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:56:06 -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 RAA19203 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:56:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b5s3-00038h-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:56:03 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b5s2-00038d-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:56:02 -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 <20030711215756.MOQU28645.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:57:56 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0F327B.1050206@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/20030710 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, af, sq, ar, ar-dz, ar-bh, ar-eg, ar-iq, ar-jo, ar-kw, ar-lb, ar-ly, ar-ma, ar-om, ar-qa, ar-sa, ar-sy, ar-tn, ar-ae, ar-ye, hy, ast, eu, be, bs, bg, ca, zh, zh-cn, zh-hk, zh-sg, zh-tw, hr, cs, da, nl, nl-be, undefined, en-au, en-bz, en-ca, en-ie, en-jm, en-nz, en-ph, en-za, en-tt, en-gb, undefined, en-zw, eo, et, fo, fi, fr, fr-be, fr-ca, fr-fr, fr-lu, fr-mc, fr-ch, gl, ka, de, de-at, de-de, de-li, de-lu, de-ch, el, he, hu, is, id, ga, it, it-ch, ja, ko, ko-kp, ko-kr, lv, lt, mk-mk, ms, no, nb, nn, pl, pt, pt-br, ro, ru, gd, sr, sk, sl, es, es-ar, es-bo, es-cl, es-co, es-cr, es-do, es-ec, es-sv, es-gt, es-hn, es-mx, es-ni, es-pa, es-py, es-pe, es-pr, es-es, es-uy, es-ve, sv, sv-fi, th, tr, uk, vi, cy, xh, yi, zu MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Kay CC: Bill Cole , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Slowing down spammers - thoughts? 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, 11 Jul 2003 17:56:11 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks Peter. You answered my question - the 55x approach will work. That is what I thought. Chuck Wegrzyn Peter Kay wrote: >I don't know how you define "slowing down" but we've effectively >deployed a technology at http://www.titankey.com using early verions of >the "Recipient-Defined Consent" approach that is slowing bubbling >through this group. Users can define one or more email addresses and a >policy (i.e. Consent) of how that email address can be used. This policy >may include Challenge/Response, at the user's option. Users then use >these email addresses as they see fit. > >If an email address is not used according to the policy defined by the >user, The Titan Key Servers respond with a 550 No Such User before the >DATA command. This effectively solves the spam bandwidth problem >(contents are never transmitted) as well as rendering the recipient >email address as useless. In addition, some (not all) bulk-emailers >stop sending bulk email after receiving the 550 which has the desireable >side-effect of reducing spam attackes over time, hence the "slowing >down" you asked about. > >I've posted detailed 3 spreadsheets to this group before that have shown >the rate of "spam attacks" over time. One of them shows an actual >decrease in spam attacks over time. The 2 others show a slight increase. >I'd love to see how this slight increase compares w/ the average >Internet-wide increase in spam as I'd be willing to bet $1 that we have >in fact "slowed down" spammers when you compare the grown of spam >attacks to these test accounts vs. the growth of spam attacks overall. > >Spreadsheets are at: > >http://www.titankey.com/misc/logs/logLes.xls >http://www.titankey.com/misc/logs/logScot.xls >http://www.titankey.com/misc/logs/logPK.xls > >Have fun. > >Peter Kay, President >TitanKey Software >The only technology that stops spam BEFORE it's even sent > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: C. Wegrzyn [mailto:wegrzyn@garbagedump.com] >>Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 3:41 AM >>To: Bill Cole >>Cc: 'asrg@ietf.org' >>Subject: Re: [Asrg] Slowing down spammers - thoughts? >> >> >>As I said in my original email I was looking for solutions to >>slow them >>down. You seemed to think I was suggesting examining or tightening up >>the return codes. Nothing code be further from the truth. >> >>I do believe that we shouldn't leave a stone unturned to find answers >>for halting spam. >> >>Chuck >> >>Bill Cole wrote: >> >> >> >>>At 6:39 AM -0400 7/11/03, C. Wegrzyn wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>I've been giving more thought to how to slow down >>>> >>>> >>spamming. It seems >> >> >>>>we should just follow 7.3 of RFC2821 - return either 250 or 252 to >>>>VRFY and EXPN commands. In this way the sender can't find out if >>>>someone is really on a system. >>>> >>>> >>>I don't know what sort of mail servers you work with, but the ones I >>>do see insignificant amounts of VRFY and EXPN requests and already >>>return the same meaningless responses for all such queries >>> >>> >>regardless >> >> >>>of their arguments. This has been common practice for many years. >>>RFC2821 was written to describe existing practice more than >>> >>> >>it was to >> >> >>>recommend new security tactics. >>> >>> >>> >>>>Second I would kick back a 551 to every message being sent by a >>>>domain/user I don't recognize or wanted to reject as SPAM. In the >>>>former case I would send the email to the real recipient allowing >>>>them to decide what to do with it. >>>> >>>> >>>1. If you kick back a 5xx code of any sort to any mail, you have >>>decided 'what to do with it' permanently and irrevocably. >>> >>>2. Any system that generates a message to the recipient for each >>>message detected as spam is at least as bad as the spam for the >>>recipients behind it. >>> >>>In any case, this sort of thing is well-established >>> >>> >>practice. The only >> >> >>>utility I see in discussing details of response codes to various >>>conditions would be to standardize them for various meanings in the >>>area of spam. I may be misunderstanding the current state >>> >>> >>of IETF/IRTF >> >> >>>affairs, but I think that's someone else's job. [2] >>> >>> >>> >>>>I the latter case I would just toss it or fill in the subject with >>>>SPAM:. >>>> >>>> >>>Modification of existing headers by an MTA for any reason other than >>>address re-writing is fundamentally wrong.[1] Adding headers (as >>>SpamAssassin does) makes far more sense and prevents multiple such >>>strategies from colliding with each others' efforts. There are >>>certainly practical arguments for doing the conceptually >>> >>> >>wrong thing >> >> >>>given the shortcomings of the world's dominant worm transmission >>>vector^W^W^W desktop mail client, but it would be a bad >>> >>> >>precedent for >> >> >>>an IRTF process to accommodate ephemeral and easily overcome >>>shortcomings at the cost of making a 'hack' recommendation like >>>subject line mangling. >>> >>>[1] Many have disagreed with that exception, but between >>> >>> >>tradition and >> >> >>>pragmatic concerns it is hard to really swear off that arguably bad >>>habit. I think the battle was lost when the revival of >>> >>> >>sendmail with >> >> >>>v8 kept header address rewriting alive. >>> >>>[2] It's also arguably not all that useful. Many sites already have >>>concerns with using 5.7.x extended status codes because they reveal >>>policy detail to parties believed to be malicious. >>> >>> >>> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 Jul 11 17:59:36 2003 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 RAA19371 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:59:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b5v4-00077q-5Q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:59:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6BLxAes027381 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:59:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b5v3-00077Y-Uj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:59:09 -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 RAA19348; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:59:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b5v1-0003Bs-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:59:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b5v0-0003Bn-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:59:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b5uu-00071C-92; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:59:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b5u2-0006vy-1h for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:58:06 -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 RAA19296 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:58:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b5tz-0003AX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:58:03 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b5ty-0003AQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:58:02 -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 <20030711215956.MPEZ28645.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:59:56 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0F32F3.4050803@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/20030710 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, af, sq, ar, ar-dz, ar-bh, ar-eg, ar-iq, ar-jo, ar-kw, ar-lb, ar-ly, ar-ma, ar-om, ar-qa, ar-sa, ar-sy, ar-tn, ar-ae, ar-ye, hy, ast, eu, be, bs, bg, ca, zh, zh-cn, zh-hk, zh-sg, zh-tw, hr, cs, da, nl, nl-be, undefined, en-au, en-bz, en-ca, en-ie, en-jm, en-nz, en-ph, en-za, en-tt, en-gb, undefined, en-zw, eo, et, fo, fi, fr, fr-be, fr-ca, fr-fr, fr-lu, fr-mc, fr-ch, gl, ka, de, de-at, de-de, de-li, de-lu, de-ch, el, he, hu, is, id, ga, it, it-ch, ja, ko, ko-kp, ko-kr, lv, lt, mk-mk, ms, no, nb, nn, pl, pt, pt-br, ro, ru, gd, sr, sk, sl, es, es-ar, es-bo, es-cl, es-co, es-cr, es-do, es-ec, es-sv, es-gt, es-hn, es-mx, es-ni, es-pa, es-py, es-pe, es-pr, es-es, es-uy, es-ve, sv, sv-fi, th, tr, uk, vi, cy, xh, yi, zu MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Nelson CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Slowing down spammers - thoughts? 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, 11 Jul 2003 17:58:11 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Scott, thanks for the analysis. All I know is what I have seen - when I have hidden an address (actually removing it) the spam to the account did drop but over a long time (6 months). Chuck Scott Nelson wrote: >At 06:39 AM 7/11/03 -0400, C. Wegrzyn wrote: > > >>I've been giving more thought to how to slow down spamming. It seems we >>should just follow 7.3 of RFC2821 - return either 250 or 252 to VRFY and >>EXPN commands. In this way the sender can't find out if someone is >>really on a system. >> >> >> > >First, the advice given in RFC 2821 section 7.3 isn't quite right. >If you don't support EXPN then it shouldn't be in the EHLO response, >and the correct error code is "503 5.5.1 Invalid command". >252 would only be correct if you make the decision to allow EXPN >on a case by case basis, after the EHLO - >for example, if you allowed EXPN only after AUTH. >As far as I know, no one does that. > > >Second, most systems that check, check using RCPT TO instead of VRFY. >(And most incorrectly assume that anything other than 250 means > non-existent, failing on "451 4.2.2 mailbox full", but that's > another topic.) With the exception of me testing the command, >I haven't seen a single VRFY command in my logs, ever. > > >Third, I have seen some pretty convincing evidence that if a spammer >/thinks/ an address is valid, they will hammer the mailbox forever. >(Not all spammers of course, but some.) >No amount of "550 5.1.1 No such user" will dissuade them. >If spammers actually checked with VRFY, returning 252 to all >such queries would risk /increasing/ the amount of spam attempted. >But since no one uses VRFY anyway, that's moot. > >Forth, Is there any evidence that hiding addresses works? >Perhaps the effectiveness of address hiding should be researched. > > > > >>Second I would kick back a 551 to every message being sent by a >>domain/user I don't recognize or wanted to reject as SPAM. In the former >>case I would send the email to the real recipient allowing them to >>decide what to do with it. I the latter case I would just toss it or >>fill in the subject with SPAM:. >> >>Thoughts? >> >> >> > >Seems to me that you'd get a lot of false positives that way. > > >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 exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 11 18:34:46 2003 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 SAA21696 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:34:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b6T7-0000zF-En for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:34:21 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6BMYL1L003791 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:34:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b6T7-0000z4-9c for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:34:21 -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 SAA21676; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:34:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b6T4-0003e9-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:34:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b6T3-0003e6-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:34:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b6Sn-0000vu-GG; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:34:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b6Se-0000vO-KC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:33:52 -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 SAA21661 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:33:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b6Sb-0003dZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:33:49 -0400 Received: from 000-232-227.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.146.72] helo=68.27.146.72 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b6SY-0003dT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:33:47 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030711180933.00b97860@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] 0.General - News Article - NYT Reports Porn Spam Hijacking Network Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <16143.12197.925901.224103@world.std.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030711122426.00b30170@pop.pocketmail.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030711122426.00b30170@pop.pocketmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 11 Jul 2003 18:26:45 -0400 At 05:44 PM 7/11/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: >Well, there ya go, the NY Times is technologically ahead of ASRG in >recognizing what the real source of the spam problem is. Barry, leaving the sarcasm aside, there are problems with looking at the spam problem from this angle. There are specific problems with dealing with the security issue which I mentioned in a prior post: 1. It is easier to deal with the problem on the edge of the network than at the core. "Fixing" the core can take decades. In the short and medium term we would be looking at "edge" solutions. In the long term perhaps a "core" solution might work but would require a very long time to implement. 2. This is something that must be dealt on the infrastructure level of the Internet - it is a general issue of security akin to other things that zombies are used for (DDOS, hosting porn sites, worms, etc.). These are issues that must be looked at as an Internet-wide problem not limited to spam. Once again, this problem stems from the fact that the Internet as a network inherently trusts its users and servers. Unless you will convert the Net into a closed system where every single server and user must have authorization, it will not solve the problem. If this is a general "security" problem, than we cannot hope to solve the "spam" specifics without solving the general security problem. Thus, it might require a new group to be focused specifically on security issues of the Net. We are dealing with spam only. I would also like to make another suggestion. It seems that you and Eric Brunner in particular have been advocating this approach. Why don't you two get together and write up a document outlining the spam problem from this point of view, and providing an evaluation checklist for solutions (also see section 3.2 of the "Technical Considerations" document (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt)). This can provide a concrete framework and a checklist for the group to consider various proposals falling under this angle of things such as replacing SMTP, detecting hijacked computers, DRIP, etc. Another suggestion which I mentioned before would be setting up an "Email Standards Project" akin to the "Web Standards Project". Get a group of people together and setup a site that will list recommended configurations for popular MTAs and MUAs that can protect user' computers from being hijacked and reduce spam. Things like shutting off open relaying, disabling ActiveX and JavaScript inside mail clients, perhaps disabling HTML email on send, etc. can be documented. User education is very important and something that can be very useful in the long run. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 11 19:45:50 2003 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 TAA25183 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:45:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b7Zr-0005mr-34 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:45:23 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6BNjNHL022239 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:45:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b7Zq-0005mc-W7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:45:23 -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 TAA25157; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:45:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b7Zp-0004y2-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:45:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b7Zo-0004xz-00; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:45:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b7ZV-0005kf-6C; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:45:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19b7Z7-0005kB-J3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:44:37 -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 TAA25126 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:44:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b7Z5-0004xU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:44:35 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b7Z4-0004xQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:44:34 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (dalton@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6BNiWW7020431; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:44:32 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA04863; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:44:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16143.19423.656943.378328@world.std.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Barry Shein , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0.General - News Article - NYT Reports Porn Spam Hijacking Network In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030711180933.00b97860@std5.imagineis.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030711122426.00b30170@pop.pocketmail.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030711180933.00b97860@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, 11 Jul 2003 19:44:31 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On July 11, 2003 at 18:26 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > At 05:44 PM 7/11/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: > > >Well, there ya go, the NY Times is technologically ahead of ASRG in > >recognizing what the real source of the spam problem is. > > Barry, leaving the sarcasm aside, there are problems with looking at the > spam problem from this angle. There are specific problems with dealing with > the security issue which I mentioned in a prior post: > 1. It is easier to deal with the problem on the edge of the network than at Many very smart people have been trying to "deal" with the problem on the edge of the network for several years now, but the spam problem grows worse and worse. I think the approach you champion above all others is rapidly becoming akin to "phlogiston" or "epicycle" theories (early scientific theories intuitively compelling and also championed to the exclusion of others which later were proven fallacious at the core.) I think you would do better to simply show your favored approach to have merit rather than constantly try to beat back others' approach to the problem. There's a fine line between trying to maintain order and simply dragging a group into a non-stop meta-discussion revolving around ones' own pet theories. > the core. "Fixing" the core can take decades. In the short and medium term Fixing the edge has already proved fruitless in nearly a decade of trying. Given the proven fruitlessness of one approach vs the possibility of frustration with another approach (whose underpinnings have now increasingly been shown to have merit) which is preferable? Well, let a thousand flowers bloom. I personally have no agenda to see your favored attack on the problem marginalized. Unfortunately I don't believe that feeling is reciprocal. > we would be looking at "edge" solutions. In the long term perhaps a "core" > solution might work but would require a very long time to implement. Since your approach has thus far produced nothing measurable why is the (hypothesized) difficulty of a different approach, in your mind, such a negative? I think we've already discussed that issue; that an approach might take years for ubiquitous deployment does not equate the likelihood of successful results (i.e., significant reduction of spam, that's why we're here, right?) from early, less pervasive deployment. Put another way, you assert that ubiquity would be difficult, but you haven't established why ubiquity is a reasonable pre-condition for success. Besides, nearly every approach has this difficulty, it's an easy criticism to make. > 2. This is something that must be dealt on the infrastructure level of the > Internet - it is a general issue of security akin to other things that > zombies are used for (DDOS, hosting porn sites, worms, etc.). These are > issues that must be looked at as an Internet-wide problem not limited to > spam. Once again, this problem stems from the fact that the Internet as a > network inherently trusts its users and servers. Unless you will convert > the Net into a closed system where every single server and user must have > authorization, it will not solve the problem. This is a particular hypothesis about the problem, and dare I say one driven by a particular agenda. One might hope that the purpose of a RESEARCH group is to pursue promising possibilities, perhaps even more than one, rather than have bridges burned by one individual's off-the-cuff speculations. > If this is a general "security" problem, than we cannot hope to solve the > "spam" specifics without solving the general security problem. Thus, it > might require a new group to be focused specifically on security issues of > the Net. We are dealing with spam only. > > I would also like to make another suggestion. It seems that you and Eric > Brunner in particular have been advocating this approach. Why don't you two > get together and write up a document outlining the spam problem from this > point of view, and providing an evaluation checklist for solutions (also > see section 3.2 of the "Technical Considerations" document > (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt)). > This can provide a concrete framework and a checklist for the group to > consider various proposals falling under this angle of things such as > replacing SMTP, detecting hijacked computers, DRIP, etc. > > Another suggestion which I mentioned before would be setting up an "Email > Standards Project" akin to the "Web Standards Project". Get a group of > people together and setup a site that will list recommended configurations > for popular MTAs and MUAs that can protect user' computers from being > hijacked and reduce spam. Things like shutting off open relaying, disabling > ActiveX and JavaScript inside mail clients, perhaps disabling HTML email on > send, etc. can be documented. User education is very important and > something that can be very useful in the long run. I have a better idea. Why doesn't Yakov form the Topics-Approved-By-Yakov research group and then you won't have to spend so much time batting away at competing approaches? You can perfect that by being the only one in that group! Consider the possibility for unfettered consensus! I think when someone expends as much energy as you do trying to silence others' approaches something is awry. Particularly when the competing theory is rising so quickly as this New York Times article, which seems to have set you off on your latest, lengthy meta-missive, demonstrates. -- -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 Sat Jul 12 03:48:30 2003 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 DAA00778 for ; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 03:48:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bF6t-0002HF-KD for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 03:47:59 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6C7lx9d008675 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 03:47:59 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bF6s-0002Fq-EK for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 03:47:58 -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 DAA00729; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 03:47:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bF6p-0003Nd-00; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 03:47:55 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bF6p-0003Na-00; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 03:47:55 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bF5x-0002D5-35; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 03:47:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bF5X-0002CZ-DV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 03:46:35 -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 DAA00630 for ; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 03:46:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bF5U-0003MC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 03:46:32 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bF5U-0003M6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 03:46:32 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19bF5U-0006pk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 08:46:32 +0100 In-Reply-To: <16143.19423.656943.378328@world.std.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0.General - News Article - NYT Reports Porn Spam Hijacking Network To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.7] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 82.69.7.27 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, 12 Jul 2003 08:46:32 +0100 > Fixing the edge has already proved fruitless in nearly a decade of > trying. > > Given the proven fruitlessness of one approach vs the possibility of > frustration with another approach (whose underpinnings have now > increasingly been shown to have merit) which is preferable? > Barry, perhaps you could remind the group exactly what kind of approach you're talking about? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jul 12 09:45:40 2003 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 JAA17651 for ; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 09:45:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bKgb-0004jv-KR for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 09:45:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6CDjDcW018213 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 09:45:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bKgb-0004jg-FV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 09:45:13 -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 JAA17617; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 09:45:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bKgZ-0007kf-00; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 09:45:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bKgY-0007kb-00; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 09:45:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bKgO-0004hn-VF; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 09:45:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bKfS-0004eM-K5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 09:44:02 -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 JAA17543 for ; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 09:43:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bKfQ-0007jo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 09:44:00 -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 19bKfP-0007jf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 09:43:59 -0400 Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6CDfLmu033108; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 09:41:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200307121341.h6CDfLmu033108@nic-naa.net> To: Yakov Shafranovich cc: Barry Shein , asrg@ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0.General - News Article - NYT Reports Porn Spam Hijacking Network In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:26:45 EDT." <5.2.0.9.2.20030711180933.00b97860@std5.imagineis.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: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 09:41:21 -0400 Yakov, See my comments to Phillip. Delete the 2nd word. Eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jul 12 10:09:32 2003 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 KAA19361 for ; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:09:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bL3i-00069s-1C for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:09:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6CE96RQ023666 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:09:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bL3h-00069d-TJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:09:05 -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 KAA19304; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:09:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bL3f-0000HU-00; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:09:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bL3f-0000HR-00; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:09:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bL3e-00067n-6w; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:09:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bL38-00067P-6j for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:08:30 -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 KAA19226 for ; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:08:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bL36-0000H5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:08:28 -0400 Received: from tarbolton.demon.co.uk ([212.229.119.215] helo=killerbees.co.uk) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bL34-0000Gz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:08:27 -0400 Received: from mailtest ([192.168.0.2]) by killerbees.co.uk (JAMES SMTP Server 3.0a1) with SMTP ID 642; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 14:24:12 +0100 (BST) From: "Danny Angus" To: "Hondin de Goot" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] My apologies to this list 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 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20030704131457.79353.qmail@mail.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: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 15:11:59 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I was appalled when I saw the flood of energy and serious > engagement with Carron's outright nonsense that a number > people I know to be excellent network engineers put into > carefully reasoned responses when he started posting to > the RIPE anti-spam wg list, but not quite as appalled as > I was at seeing how quickly he could then construct > apparently meaningful - although, in fact, equally > nonsensical - extensions to his buzzword edifice out > of the quite undigested information he was thereby > obtaining, mainly because it seemed to me that that > ability could easily introduce, at this specific time, > serious political impediments to at least some serious > considerations of rational technical solutions. I was just directed to read this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/31638.html _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jul 12 18:16:06 2003 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 SAA15439 for ; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 18:16:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bSea-0001X6-ME for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 18:15:40 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6CMFewU005893 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 18:15:40 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bSea-0001Wy-EW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 18:15:40 -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 SAA15378; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 18:15:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bSeX-0006Ib-00; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 18:15:37 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bSeX-0006IY-00; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 18:15:37 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bScy-0001Ow-Tl; Sat, 12 Jul 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 19bScw-0001Ol-7E for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 18:13:58 -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 SAA15167 for ; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 18:13:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bSct-0006HG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 18:13:55 -0400 Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com ([194.73.73.176]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bScs-0006HB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 18:13:54 -0400 Received: from host217-39-60-41.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.39.60.41] helo=XP1) by protactinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #23) id 19bScs-0004vl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:13:54 +0100 Message-ID: <001201c348c2$e1b35ef0$293c27d9@XP1> From: "Patrick Galvin" To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01C348CB.40415410" 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 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: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:13:49 +0100 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C348CB.40415410 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello all, I have been tuning into Asrg for the last few weeks and = subscribed a few days ago. I have just received a very interesting spam = that I haven't seen before which would/should get through the current = Bayesian filtering systems. You may have all come across it before! -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- Hiya, With most of you all going on holiday soon, I just thought this website = my boyfriend emailed me about would be useful! Looks like you can save = loads on international phone calls. Helen x -----Original Message----- From: Steve Jesop [mailto:bigsteveuk2@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 4:34 PM To: helen.adams@ukonline.co.uk Subject: Useful information this time of year Hi Helen, I have just been told about this website where it tells you how to make cheap phone calls, it looks pretty good and we don't even need to register = with them. I will be able to call you every day when you are on holiday as it will only cost me the same as ringing you when you are here! The website is here: http://www.pd-dial.com Anyway, must get on with more work, take care babe Steve ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C348CB.40415410 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello all, I have been tuning into Asrg = for the=20 last few weeks and subscribed a few days ago. I have just received a = very=20 interesting spam that I haven't seen before which would/should get = through the=20 current Bayesian filtering systems. You may have all come across it=20 before!
 
Hiya,

With most of you all going on holiday soon, I just thought = this=20 website my
boyfriend emailed me about would be useful! Looks like you = can=20 save loads on
international phone=20 calls.

Helen
x


-----Original Message-----
From: = Steve=20 Jesop [mailto:bigsteveuk2@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 = 4:34=20 PM
To: helen.adams@ukonline.co.uk=
Subject:=20 Useful information this time of year


Hi Helen,

I have = just=20 been told about this website where it tells you how to = make
cheap
phone=20 calls, it looks pretty good and we don't even need to register = with
them. I=20 will be able to call you every day when you are on holiday as = it
will
only=20 cost me the same as ringing you when you are here!

The website is = here:=20 http://www.pd-dial.com

Anyway,= must=20 get on with more work, take care = babe

Steve 
------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C348CB.40415410-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jul 12 22:52:23 2003 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 WAA01726 for ; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 22:52:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bWxx-0002at-JR for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 22:51:57 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6D2pvO0009965 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 22:51:57 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bWxx-0002ae-FX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 22:51:57 -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 WAA01692; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 22:51:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bWxt-0002dg-00; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 22:51:54 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bWxt-0002dd-00; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 22:51:53 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bWx3-0002Sf-ST; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 22:51:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bWwr-0002SO-6o for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 22:50:49 -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 WAA01618 for ; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 22:50:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bWwn-0002cR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 22:50:45 -0400 Received: from 000-229-444.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.135.83] helo=68.27.135.83) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bWwl-0002cC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 22:50:44 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030712224853.00b40f60@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] 0.General - News Article - NYT Reports Porn Spam Hijacking Network Cc: asrg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 12 Jul 2003 22:50:11 -0400 At 07:44 PM 7/11/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: >... >On July 11, 2003 at 18:26 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > > At 05:44 PM 7/11/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: > >.. > > > the core. "Fixing" the core can take decades. In the short and medium > term > >Fixing the edge has already proved fruitless in nearly a decade of >trying. > >Given the proven fruitlessness of one approach vs the possibility of >frustration with another approach (whose underpinnings have now >increasingly been shown to have merit) which is preferable? >.... I have no problems looking at the problem from the "core", I just don't know where to begin. If you wish to attack the problem at the "core", then "stand up and deliver" - lets hear some concrete directions in which we should be looking, some approaches we should pursue, data which we should be soliciting. That's why I am suggesting to you and Eric writing a short document or perhaps posting a message to the list outlining directions and approaches to attack spam from the "core" angle, instead of just talking about it. Additionally, as I mentioned previously (https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg06454.html), coordination with other RGs and WGs would be useful. 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 Sun Jul 13 00:28:11 2003 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 AAA07667 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:28:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bYSf-0005L1-9L for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:27:45 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6D4RjmC020513 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:27:45 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bYSf-0005Km-28 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:27:45 -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 AAA07621; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:27:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bYSc-0004FZ-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:27:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bYSb-0004FU-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:27:41 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bYRx-0005IS-4Z; Sun, 13 Jul 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 19bYRG-0005Hi-90 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:26:18 -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 AAA07511 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:26:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bYRD-0004Dl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:26:15 -0400 Received: from 000-229-444.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.135.83] helo=68.27.135.83) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bYRB-0004Di-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:26:15 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030713002548.00b40f60@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 Subject: [Asrg] 1. Problem Inventory - Core 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: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:25:53 -0400 As mentioned by Barry before, one type of solutions for spam are attacking the problem at the "core" level of the network - seeking ways to detect spam behavior including hijacked computers and stopping them. Therefore, I would like to ask the following: 1. How should the group charter be redefined to include this view of the problem? 2. Can anyone suggest possible approaches? 3. If this type of solutions are considered more of a "long term", should we be considering "edge" solutions for the short and medium term? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 01:17:13 2003 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 BAA10451 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 01:17:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bZE4-0006kL-8Z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 01:16:45 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6D5GicA025927 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 01:16:44 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bZE4-0006k6-5R for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 01:16:44 -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 BAA10425; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 01:16:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bZE1-0004zx-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 01:16:41 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bZE0-0004zu-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 01:16:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bZDO-0006i9-0P; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 01:16:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bZDK-0006hg-7y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 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 BAA10379 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 01:15:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bZDH-0004z9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 01:15:55 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bZDG-0004yw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 01:15:54 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (dyn-64-50.tor.dial.tht.net [134.22.64.50]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C22B5369DB for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 01:15:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 13 Jul 2003 01:15:46 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Message-ID: <20030713011546.B1981@m433> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i Subject: [Asrg] Proposal: NO_XMIT DNS record Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 13 Jul 2003 01:15:46 -0400 I've seen various proposals for RMX and variants. There are two major problems... 1) If a domain can specify which machines can send for it, spammers simply point their domains' records to trojaned machines, *JUST LIKE THEY'RE DOING FOR WEBSERVERS AND DNS RIGHT NOW*. And I'd have to keep up to date on MTA names for 3 ISPs (IStop plus a couple of backups). So there are no major security benefits, but there is additional paperwork for me. 2) If a domain can specify which machines it can send for, you're back to the fiasco at (I thik it was) Bell Atlantic, where for a time, you could only send out email "From:" your own account, not from a valid 3rd party or personal domain you were authorized to use. Let's get back to basics to see why RMX has been proposed. Trojaned machines have been used to originate spam. The RMX proposal seeks to set up lists of which machines can tramsit for which domains. This misses the point of the problem. It's not the authorized MTAs we have problems with, it's the trojaned home machines, that have no business whatsoever connecting to port 25 (except to their own ISP) on behalf of *ANY* domain whatsoever. So much for criticism; what do I propose as an improvement ? My proposal is for a NO_XMIT record in DNS. It effectively stands the RMX proposal on its head. It would signify IP addresses that have no business connecting to external MTAs. This would be very similar in function to MAPS DUL(TM) and other lists of dynamic IP addresses. Here is a sample implementation for discussion... 1) IP address 10.1.2.3, which is not one of your customers, connects to your MTA wanting to send you mail. "customers" includes those authorized to ssh/vnc/vpn/etc to your system. 2) Your MTA queries someting like "host -t NO_XMIT 10.1.2.3" 3) If the query returns 127.0.0.2, your MTA may choose to reject the email. This depends on ISPs wildcarding their dynamic IP address ranges to return 127.0.0.2. Notes... 1) Since absence of a DNS record implies accepting the email, NO_XMIT will "fail safely" during DNS outages; i.e. all email (including spam) will be authorized, rather than no mail 2) Since absence of a DNS record implies accepting the email, NO_XMIT is backwards-compatable to systems which haven't implemented it. If NO_XMIT is widely accepted, non-adopters may be seen as bad internet neighbours, and be blocked locally, but that's another thing altogether. 3) This proposal depends on ISPs wildcarding their dynamic IP address ranges to return 127.0.0.2. However, it will have much less logistical hassle than trying to maintain *UP-TO-DATE* lists of who can send for whom from which IP addresses. 4) I'd prefer to use strictly the 127.0.0.2 return value for rejection. This would allow for future extensions, e.g. 127.0.0.3 might mean that an RMX record exists, and you can further query it if you wish. 5) Given that IPV6 will get here eventually, it's probably a good idea to develope an IPV6 version at the same time as IPV4. -- 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 Jul 13 08:01:41 2003 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 IAA14783 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:01:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bfXT-0004AX-Ex for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:01:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6DC1BYv016023 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:01:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bfXT-0004AM-9u for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:01:11 -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 IAA14750; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:01:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bfXS-0002qu-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:01:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bfXR-0002qr-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:01:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bfWL-00046h-R9; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:00:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bfVc-00044B-8o for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 07:59:16 -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 HAA14613 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 07:59:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bfVb-0002p9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 07:59:15 -0400 Received: from mail1.nber.org ([207.113.108.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bfVa-0002ow-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 07:59:14 -0400 Received: from mail1 (root@localhost) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id h6DC41B1024654 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:04:02 -0400 Received: from nber5.nber.org (nber5.nber.org [207.113.108.99]) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6DBu8Wi022988; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:04:00 -0400 From: Daniel Feenberg To: Walter Dnes cc: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal: NO_XMIT DNS record In-Reply-To: <20030713011546.B1981@m433> 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, 13 Jul 2003 07:48:42 -0400 (EDT) On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Walter Dnes wrote: > > My proposal is for a NO_XMIT record in DNS. It effectively stands the > RMX proposal on its head. It would signify IP addresses that have no > business connecting to external MTAs. This would be very similar in > function to MAPS DUL(TM) and other lists of dynamic IP addresses. Here > is a sample implementation for discussion... > This is a proposal really worth discussing. I have some questions below, but don't think they are intended as complaints. This is the best proposal we have seen. First, given the nature of existing DNS clients and servers, which need to be updated to support a new record type? Just the authoritative server? Or all the servers and the client too? If the latter, isn't there a strong argument for overloading an existing record, such as MX, SRV, or TXT? Is it possible to specify a transition period during which an existing record is overloading, and a new record is established? I like the fact that it is based on "consent of the sending ISP", which is an important form of consent that hasn't had enough emphasis. As a result, sending ISPs have few ready-made tools to suppress outbound spam. This is a refinement of three existing practices - (1) some receiving MTAs reject mail from hosts with the strings "dial-up" or "dhcp" in their hostnames. Is that effective? Does it affect the way ISPs name their systems? If systems avoid those names for this very reason, then NO_XMIT will not attract them. Does Spamassain look at the hostname? How many points for those strings? (2) Some systems block outbound port 25 from dial-up lines at the router. This seems very attractive as a policy, why would an autonomous system support NO_XMIT rather than just blocking the port? If the intent is to reduce abuse complaints, wouldn't that be more effective? Is the downside router workload, or do some ISPs want to support direct to MX mail? (3) You mentioned the MAPS DUL. Do systems voluntarily send their IP address ranges to MAPS, or does MAPS generally figure it out for themselves? If the latter, do we have any idea why they don't cooperate? Does that indicate they won't cooperate with NO_XMIT? Will the existence of a formal standard affect many of them? Daniel Feenberg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 08:11:07 2003 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 IAA15455 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:11:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bfgc-0004k1-HQ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:10:39 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6DCAcVD018219 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:10:38 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bfgc-0004jm-DU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:10:38 -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 IAA15421; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:10:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bfgb-00030E-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:10:37 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bfga-00030A-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:10:36 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bfg1-0004gb-6R; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:10:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bffc-0004g4-83 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:09:36 -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 IAA15328 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:09:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bffb-0002yk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:09:35 -0400 Received: from [213.178.169.5] (helo=ext1.enyo.de) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bffa-0002yh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:09:34 -0400 Received: from host-212-9-163-116.dial.netic.de ([212.9.163.116] helo=mail.enyo.de) by ext1.enyo.de with asmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bffZ-000CZM-Av; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:09:33 +0200 Received: from [212.9.189.171] (helo=deneb.enyo.de) by mail.enyo.de with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bffZ-0002nX-OH; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:09:33 +0200 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.20) id 19bffY-00038m-Ua; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:09:32 +0200 To: Walter Dnes Cc: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal: NO_XMIT DNS record References: <20030713011546.B1981@m433> From: Florian Weimer Mail-Followup-To: Walter Dnes , ASRG list In-Reply-To: <20030713011546.B1981@m433> (Walter Dnes's message of "Sun, 13 Jul 2003 01:15:46 -0400") Message-ID: <87k7ameigz.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, 13 Jul 2003 14:09:32 +0200 Walter Dnes writes: > My proposal is for a NO_XMIT record in DNS. It effectively stands the > RMX proposal on its head. It would signify IP addresses that have no > business connecting to external MTAs. Why not filter 25/TCP instead? There isn't much difference between these approaches (and I find both of them questionable). _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 08:24:07 2003 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 IAA16257 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:24:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bftD-00058c-Jo for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:23:39 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6DCNd06019744 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:23:39 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bftD-00058N-Fm for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:23:39 -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 IAA16231; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:23:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bftC-0003DS-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:23:38 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bftB-0003DP-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:23:37 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bfsb-00056L-Dc; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:23:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bfrz-00055J-VZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:22:23 -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 IAA16179 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:22:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bfry-0003CV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:22:22 -0400 Received: from mail1.nber.org ([207.113.108.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bfry-0003CS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:22:22 -0400 Received: from mail1 (root@localhost) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id h6DCRDff011153 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:27:13 -0400 Received: from nber5.nber.org (nber5.nber.org [207.113.108.99]) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6DCRCk7011132; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:27:12 -0400 From: Daniel Feenberg To: Walter Dnes cc: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal: NO_XMIT DNS record In-Reply-To: <20030713011546.B1981@m433> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT_PINE version=2.43 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 13 Jul 2003 08:19:45 -0400 (EDT) On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Walter Dnes wrote: > My proposal is for a NO_XMIT record in DNS. It effectively stands the > RMX proposal on its head. It would signify IP addresses that have no > business connecting to external MTAs. This would be very similar in > function to MAPS DUL(TM) and other lists of dynamic IP addresses. Here > is a sample implementation for discussion... > Some questions for discussion (I really like this proposal): Given the nature of DNS, does the whole chain of clients and servers need to be modified to support NO_XMIT, or just the servers? If everything has to be updated, isn't that an argument for overloading and existing record (such as MX, TXT, or SRV), at least during a transition period? From the point of view of the sending ISP or autonomous system, what is the advantage of supporting NO_XMIT, as compared to blocking outbound port 25 at the network edge? Is the problem router load, or philisophical? Wouldn't that be both easier and more effective? Would the existence of a formal standard for NO_XMIT make it more acceptable than blocking port 25? Daniel Feenberg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 09:07:14 2003 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 JAA18903 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:07:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bgYw-0006IY-85 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:06:46 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6DD6k6w024206 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:06:46 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bgYw-0006IL-56 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:06:46 -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 JAA18857; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:06:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bgYu-0003si-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:06:44 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bgYt-0003sf-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:06:43 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bgYE-0006G2-Ia; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:06:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bgXd-0006FU-Kz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:05:25 -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 JAA18790 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:05:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bgXc-0003rW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:05:24 -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 19bgXb-0003rT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:05:23 -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 19bgWi-0002Kx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:04:28 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal: NO_XMIT DNS record In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 13 Jul 2003 01:15:46 EDT." <20030713011546.B1981@m433> 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, 13 Jul 2003 09:04:28 -0400 Walter Dnes wrote: > I've seen various proposals for RMX and variants. There are two major > problems... There are more problems with RMX-style solutions than the two you posted. For RMX, the single largest problem is the requirement of a new record type, which your proposal shares. > My proposal is for a NO_XMIT record in DNS. It effectively stands the > RMX proposal on its head. It would signify IP addresses that have no > business connecting to external MTAs. This is semantically identical to the DUL blacklists, but implemented differently. It shares the DUL problem, in that administrators have to sign up to an "opt-out" list for it to work. Experience has showed that opt-out lists are problematic. In addition, there are ~2^32 possible machines which are not dedicated MTA's, and ~2^18 or so long-lived MTA's. (See previous stats posted to the list) So an "opt-in" list of "yes, I'm really an honest ISP" would be smaller, and probably more effective. > 2) Your MTA queries someting like "host -t NO_XMIT 10.1.2.3" Implicit in that statement is a global manager for the list, similar to the existing reverse map. i.e. You're looking up IP's, not domains. So this proposal *cannot* be implemented by updating DNS for a domain, there *must* be a global registry. > 3) This proposal depends on ISPs wildcarding their dynamic IP address > ranges to return 127.0.0.2. However, it will have much less > logistical hassle than trying to maintain *UP-TO-DATE* lists of who > can send for whom from which IP addresses. Is it really that difficult to update a reverse record, at the same time as you update an MX record? > 4) I'd prefer to use strictly the 127.0.0.2 return value for rejection. > This would allow for future extensions, e.g. 127.0.0.3 might mean > that an RMX record exists, and you can further query it if you wish. TXT records? Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 11:45:17 2003 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 LAA28806 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:45:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bj1t-0003Hj-JU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:44:50 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6DFinG5012620 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:44:49 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bj1t-0003HT-9V for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:44:49 -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 LAA28766; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:44:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bj1s-00061l-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:44:48 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bj1r-00061h-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:44:47 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bj17-0003FS-4Y; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:44:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bj0b-0003F5-JM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:43:29 -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 LAA28753 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:43:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bj0a-00061X-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:43:28 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bj0Z-00061U-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:43:27 -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 2537199; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:43:12 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <87k7ameigz.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> References: <20030713011546.B1981@m433> <87k7ameigz.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> To: Florian Weimer From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal: NO_XMIT DNS record Cc: Walter Dnes , 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: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:42:38 -0400 At 2:09 PM +0200 7/13/03, Florian Weimer wrote: >Walter Dnes writes: > >> My proposal is for a NO_XMIT record in DNS. It effectively stands the >> RMX proposal on its head. It would signify IP addresses that have no >> business connecting to external MTAs. > >Why not filter 25/TCP instead? Because that prevents users from connecting to an SMTP server as an authorized client. However that does raise a variation on the use of the field. Presumably if you have roving users, you would only fail connections from NO_XMIT IP addresses when they failed to authorized, rather than simply at connection time. -- 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 Jul 13 12:00:06 2003 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 MAA29086 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:00:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bjGF-0003hb-5v for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:59:39 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6DFxdhu014225 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:59:39 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bjGF-0003hM-0E for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:59:39 -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 LAA29065; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:59:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bjGD-00064g-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:59:37 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bjGD-00064d-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:59:37 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bjFd-0003fK-Cd; Sun, 13 Jul 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 19bjF1-0003eu-Lv for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:58:23 -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 LAA29050 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:58:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bjF0-00064M-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:58:22 -0400 Received: from mail1.nber.org ([207.113.108.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bjEz-00064J-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:58:21 -0400 Received: from mail1 (root@localhost) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id h6DG3H8v016361 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:03:18 -0400 Received: from nber5.nber.org (nber5.nber.org [207.113.108.99]) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6DG3Hk7016336; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:03:17 -0400 From: Daniel Feenberg To: Kee Hinckley cc: Florian Weimer , Walter Dnes , ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal: NO_XMIT DNS record 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: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:55:47 -0400 (EDT) On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 2:09 PM +0200 7/13/03, Florian Weimer wrote: > >Walter Dnes writes: > > > >> My proposal is for a NO_XMIT record in DNS. It effectively stands the > >> RMX proposal on its head. It would signify IP addresses that have no > >> business connecting to external MTAs. > > > >Why not filter 25/TCP instead? > > Because that prevents users from connecting to an SMTP server as an > authorized client. These should be done on the submit port (587). See RFC 2476. Since there is no point in trying to send spam to port 587 (it requires authorization) only port 25 need be blocked. It is the only port for mail coming from complete strangers. k _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 12:20:09 2003 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 MAA29589 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:20:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bjZd-0004fN-74 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:19:42 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6DGJf8e017936 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:19:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bjZd-0004fD-32 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:19:41 -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 MAA29576; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:19:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bjZb-0006CO-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:19:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bjZa-0006CL-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:19:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bjYy-0004dI-P7; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:19:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bjYG-0004cG-FP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:18:16 -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 MAA29529 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:18:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bjYF-0006C4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:18:15 -0400 Received: from 000-253-837.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.231.92] helo=68.27.231.92) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bjY9-0006C1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:18:11 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030713121739.00b36c68@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] 0.General - News Article - NYT Reports Porn Spam Hijacking Network Cc: asrg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 13 Jul 2003 12:17:41 -0400 At 07:44 PM 7/11/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: >..... >On July 11, 2003 at 18:26 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > > At 05:44 PM 7/11/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: > > >.... > > the core. "Fixing" the core can take decades. In the short and medium > term > >Fixing the edge has already proved fruitless in nearly a decade of >trying. > >Given the proven fruitlessness of one approach vs the possibility of >frustration with another approach (whose underpinnings have now >increasingly been shown to have merit) which is preferable? > >Well, let a thousand flowers bloom. I personally have no agenda to see >your favored attack on the problem marginalized. > >Unfortunately I don't believe that feeling is reciprocal. >..... FYI, I am open to both approaches and I had mentioned your issue before (http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg04570.html) regarding zombie computers: -----------snip----------- Additionally the question of slave servers poses a tremendous problem not just in regard to this issue, but in regard to all anti-spam solutions. In theory if a computer has been taken over, what prevents the trojan/virus from doing the following: 1. Emailing other users on the Internet directly. 2. Monitoring local SMTP traffic and finding out what SMTP server is used by the user. Then using that SMTP server for sending spam. RMX/rDNS will not help here since the email will come from a permitted IP range. SSL/TLS will not help since the trojan can capture the password used. 3. Perfoming tracert from the infected computer to some other site and trying to figure out the MTA for that domain for each domain listed in the trace route, possibly even via RMX/rDNS or some other proposal, and then using that MTA for spam. 4. Sending spam via [insert your method]. -----------snip----------- Mike Rubel and I had a discussion then on how RMX with rate limits can help to solve this problem, see http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg04594.html and http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg04616.html. In particular: ----snip---- I believe RMX and other RMX-like proposals will help in the slave server case. The spammer can still use the slave to send spam, but if he wants to send it using slave owner's identity, the messages must go out thru the real outbound mail servers listed in the RMX records or they will be rejected as forgeries. Assume the outbound mail servers are well-secured relative to the slaves (which are probably just desktop machines on home cable modems). The mail server admins can use rate-limiters which detect attempts by a user to send a lot of messages at once and react appropriately. If the server admins are not careful and have not installed rate-limiters, then the spam gets through and the domain loses trust (by which I mean Bayesian spam filters become more likely to reject MAIL FROM: it). So the admins have an incentive to be careful and install the limiters. Mike ------snip-------- and an example of such rate limit message: -----------snip-------------- I was thinking along the lines of contacting the user with a message like this: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear customer, We apologize for this intrusion. Our systems indicate that your computer attempted to send a large number of emails over the last ten minutes. Because unusually large volumes of outbound email sometimes indicate the presence of a computer virus, we wanted to check with you before proceeding. These and further emails will be placed in a temporary quarantine while we await your instructions. We respect your privacy, and will not read or otherwise disclose the messages without your permission. Please call (800) 123-4567 at your earliest convenience so that we may process your request without further delay. We appreciate your business and look forward to serving you again in the future. --Your friendly email service providers To change your notification settings, please go to: https://www.exampleisp.com/my_account_settings/web_form.php ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A well-designed safety valve might be a feature worth advertising to customers; it has perceived value and helps reduce spam. Think back to the credit card analogy again--unusual behavior alerts are billed as something of value to the customer, while at the same time reducing losses for the company. Of course, the admins must be careful to avoid imposing, hence "large number of emails" and time period will be different for each user. They should be given reasonable default values, and the notification limits could even be changed by the users themselves, as indicated by the secure web link in the example above. It is in this sense that I believe RMX (Danisch) and RMX-like proposals (Vixie, Fecyk) have the ability to limit the spam effect of poorly-secured desktop machines. Mike ----snip---- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 12:29:05 2003 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 MAA29754 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:29:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bjiI-0004zs-G9 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:28:38 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6DGSchj019202 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:28:38 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bjiI-0004zd-Cw for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:28:38 -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 MAA29747; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:28:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bjiG-0006EK-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:28:36 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bjiG-0006EH-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:28:36 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bjhh-0004wV-8q; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:28:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bjhB-0004tb-H8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:27:29 -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 MAA29705 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:27:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bjhA-0006Dy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:27:28 -0400 Received: from 000-253-837.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.231.92] helo=68.27.231.92) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bjh8-0006Dv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:27:27 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030713122535.00ba27a8@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 Subject: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Must Address Issue of Hijacked 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: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:27:03 -0400 Should the following be part of the requirements: "Proposals must address issues of hijacked computers used for sending spam." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 14:35:25 2003 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 OAA01866 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:35:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19blgY-0008Av-8x for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:34:59 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6DIYwLP031419 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:34:58 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19blgY-0008Ag-4h for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:34:58 -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 OAA01834; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:34:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19blgV-0006fg-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:34:55 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19blgU-0006fd-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:34:54 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19blfd-00085j-BP; Sun, 13 Jul 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 19blfb-00085Y-Vb for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:34:00 -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 OAA01817 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:33:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19blfZ-0006ez-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:33:57 -0400 Received: from jaguar.icir.org ([192.150.187.74]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19blfY-0006ew-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:33:56 -0400 Received: from jaguar.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jaguar.icir.org (8.12.8p1/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h6DIXow9073498; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:33:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from vern@jaguar.icir.org) Message-Id: <200307131833.h6DIXow9073498@jaguar.icir.org> To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Barry Shein , ASRG , Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine , Paul Judge Subject: Re: 1. Inventory of Problems - Exploitation (was RE: [Asrg] 2. - Spam Characterization - Possible Measurements) In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 09 Jul 2003 01:29:19 EDT. 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, 13 Jul 2003 11:33:50 -0700 > ... However, we cannot address solutions for this > network-wide security issue since our work area is limited to spam. However > what we can do is: > 1. Mention the security problem in documentation. > 2. Coordinate with other WGs and RGs on the topic. > 3. Pass along any security proposals to other WGs and RGs where they can be > evaluated as well. > > This is something the IRTF chair can advise on. I agree with the above. The problems leading to easily-compromised end systems are outside the scope of ASRG. Dealing with the reality that such systems exist is within the scope of ASRG. Vern _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 16:35:23 2003 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 QAA04994 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:35:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bnYa-0002qm-7c for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:34:56 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6DKYq3g010952 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:34:52 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bnYa-0002qZ-0f for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:34:52 -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 QAA04963; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:34:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bnYX-00079l-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:34:49 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bnYW-00079i-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:34:48 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bnXk-0002nM-L2; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:34:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bnWp-0002mx-RP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:33:04 -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 QAA04947 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:33:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bnWn-00079L-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:33:01 -0400 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bnWn-00079H-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:33:01 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h6DKWv2Q029866; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 13:32:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <36F389MD>; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 13:32:57 -0700 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D2322@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Daniel Feenberg'" , Kee Hinckley Cc: Florian Weimer , Walter Dnes , ASRG list Subject: RE: [Asrg] Proposal: NO_XMIT DNS record 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, 13 Jul 2003 13:32:57 -0700 I don't think that a reverse MX record should be prohibitive. It is fair for a reverse MX record to have a statement such as 'this is a dialup' or 'this is a broadband consumer account' or 'this address not issued'. But that should be seen as an input to the filter/accept criteria. If a person on a dialup line uses some form of authentication to prove that they are not a spammer they should be able to send mail by that means. The MAPS lists this proposal would replace are not 'do not accept' lists, they are purely descriptive. This proposal could be extended to support additional security related semantics. If I know an address simply has not been issued I can take rather more aggressive DoS prevention measures out to the cloud. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 16:39:05 2003 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 QAA05060 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:39:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bncE-0003GD-0B for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:38:38 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6DKcbGA012527 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:38:37 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bncD-0003Fy-T7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:38:37 -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 QAA05046; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:38:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bncB-0007AR-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:38:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bncB-0007AO-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:38:35 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bnbc-0003Cb-HM; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:38:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bnax-00030s-4H for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:37:19 -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 QAA05025 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:37:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bnav-0007A4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:37:17 -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 19bnau-0007A1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:37:16 -0400 Received: from dino ([66.120.64.130]) by magic1.org for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 13:34:50 -0700 Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Scott Nelson Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal: NO_XMIT DNS record Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 13 Jul 2003 13:37:46 -0700 At 09:04 AM 7/13/03 -0400, Alan DeKok wrote: [heavily edited] >Walter Dnes wrote: >> My proposal is for a NO_XMIT record in DNS. [...] >> It would signify IP addresses that have no >> business connecting to external MTAs. > > This is semantically identical to the DUL blacklists, but >implemented differently. It shares the DUL problem, in that >administrators have to sign up to an "opt-out" list for it to work. >Experience has showed that opt-out lists are problematic. In >addition, there are ~2^32 possible machines which are not dedicated >MTA's, and ~2^18 or so long-lived MTA's. (See previous stats posted >to the list) > > So an "opt-in" list of "yes, I'm really an honest ISP" would be >smaller, and probably more effective. > >> 2) Your MTA queries someting like "host -t NO_XMIT 10.1.2.3" > > Implicit in that statement is a global manager for the list, similar >to the existing reverse map. > > i.e. You're looking up IP's, not domains. So this proposal *cannot* >be implemented by updating DNS for a domain, there *must* be a global >registry. > >> 3) This proposal depends on ISPs wildcarding their dynamic IP address >> ranges to return 127.0.0.2. However, it will have much less >> logistical hassle than trying to maintain *UP-TO-DATE* lists of who >> can send for whom from which IP addresses. > > Is it really that difficult to update a reverse record, at the same >time as you update an MX record? > >> 4) I'd prefer to use strictly the 127.0.0.2 return value for rejection. >> This would allow for future extensions, e.g. 127.0.0.3 might mean >> that an RMX record exists, and you can further query it if you wish. > > TXT records? > Markus Stumpf in a post apparently archived at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/anti-spam-wg/2003/msg00175.html suggests a TXT record using the same FQDN as the rDNS record. I.e. - each valid outgoing mailserver should have a TXT record in reverse DNS like: 3.2.1.10.in-addr.arpa IN PTR mail.example.com IN TXT "MTA=yes" Or 3.2.1.10.in-addr.arpa IN PTR mail.example.com IN TXT "MTA=no" You could use A records; 3.2.1.10.in-addr.arpa IN PTR mail.example.com IN A 127.0.0.1 or both for that matter, 3.2.1.10.in-addr.arpa IN PTR mail.example.com IN TXT "MTA=no" IN A 127.0.0.2 but I think the RFC 1464 method is cleaner, and allows for additional TXT records like "ABUSE=mailto:abuse@example.com" and other expansion. Some comments; If widely adopted, this would effectively stop spam from open proxies and cracked machines. It might even stop spam from hijacked IP addresses, depending on how the rDNS is designated. It's relatively painless, but it does require some effort on the part of the rDNS owner. There is a conflict between the user of an IP address, and the owner of the rDNS record. Many ISPs do not currently allow the end user to set the rDNS record for the IP they use. Many others only allow it with the payment of very high fees. Dynamic IPs have special problems, and probably wouldn't be able to do it in most cases. The net effect is that when "permission to send email" is set by the rDNS owner, some currently valid, non-spamming mail servers lose the ability to send email. The usual chicken and egg problem applies. This can be mitigated in the usual way - IPs which have neither a "MTA=yes" or "MTA=no" entry can be checked against a third party list (probably DNS based, but it could be anything really). There will always be IPs for which no record exists, but that isn't any worse than what we have now (nothing). Scott Nelson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 16:51:08 2003 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 QAA05345 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:51:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bnnt-0003ZK-3P for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:50:41 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6DKof99013712 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:50:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bnns-0003Z5-Vo for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:50:40 -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 QAA05341; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:50:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bnnq-0007F6-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:50:38 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bnnq-0007F3-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:50:38 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bnnF-0003Vs-N4; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:50:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bnmJ-0003VT-Ou for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:49:03 -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 QAA05320 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:49:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bnmH-0007Ea-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:49:01 -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 19bnmG-0007EX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:49:01 -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 19bnlN-0002Of-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:48:05 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal: NO_XMIT DNS record In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 13 Jul 2003 13:37:46 PDT." 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, 13 Jul 2003 16:48:05 -0400 Scott Nelson wrote: > If widely adopted, this would effectively stop spam from > open proxies and cracked machines. It might even stop spam > from hijacked IP addresses, depending on how the rDNS is designated. It wouldn't stop the spam, it would give a filter which had very low false positives & negatives. Spammers could still DDoS people by sending TCP SYN's. > There is a conflict between the user of an IP address, > and the owner of the rDNS record. Many ISPs do not currently > allow the end user to set the rDNS record for the IP they use. > Many others only allow it with the payment of very high fees. The IESG should make a statement about businesses selling "internet connections". Real "internet connections" are fully capable, for traffic & identity. Anything else is second class, and is not a full internet connection. The rDNS problem is a political issue, not a technical matter. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 18:08:14 2003 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 SAA07102 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:08:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bp0W-0005zA-TS for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:07:49 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6DM7mTY023007 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:07:48 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bp0W-0005z0-OP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:07:48 -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 SAA07031; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:07:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bp0T-0007XN-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:07:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bp0T-0007XK-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:07:45 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bozl-0005er-Br; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:07:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19boz7-0005eJ-Tx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:06:21 -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 SAA06878 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:06:17 -0400 (EDT) From: DKill123@aol.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19boz5-0007Wj-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:06:19 -0400 Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.37]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19boz4-0007Wd-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:06:18 -0400 Received: from DKill123@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id l.cb.352a7237 (4340) for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:05:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: To: Asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_cb.352a7237.2c4331ae_boundary" X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10634 Subject: [Asrg] re: UNSUBSCRIBE Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 13 Jul 2003 18:05:34 EDT --part1_cb.352a7237.2c4331ae_boundary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_cb.352a7237.2c4331ae_alt_boundary" --part1_cb.352a7237.2c4331ae_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit TAKE MY EMAIL ADDRESS OFF YOUR MAILING LIST --part1_cb.352a7237.2c4331ae_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable TAKE MY EMAIL ADDRESS OFF YOUR MAILING LIST --part1_cb.352a7237.2c4331ae_alt_boundary-- --part1_cb.352a7237.2c4331ae_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-xn03.mx.aol.com (rly-xn03.mail.aol.com [172.20.83.136]) by air-xn02.mail.aol.com (v94.1) with ESMTP id MAILINXN23-81c13f11c2957c; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:35:33 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf-ops.ietf.org [132.151.6.20]) by rly-xn03.mx.aol.com (v94.27) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXN31-6373f11c28026b; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:35:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bnXk-0002nK-Id; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:34:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bnWp-0002mx-RP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:33:04 -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 QAA04947 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:33:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bnWn-00079L-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:33:01 -0400 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bnWn-00079H-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:33:01 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h6DKWv2Q029866; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 13:32:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <36F389MD>; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 13:32:57 -0700 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D2322@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Daniel Feenberg'" , Kee Hinckley Cc: Florian Weimer , Walter Dnes , ASRG list Subject: RE: [Asrg] Proposal: NO_XMIT DNS record 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, 13 Jul 2003 13:32:57 -0700 I don't think that a reverse MX record should be prohibitive. It is fair for a reverse MX record to have a statement such as 'this is a dialup' or 'this is a broadband consumer account' or 'this address not issued'. But that should be seen as an input to the filter/accept criteria. If a person on a dialup line uses some form of authentication to prove that they are not a spammer they should be able to send mail by that means. The MAPS lists this proposal would replace are not 'do not accept' lists, they are purely descriptive. This proposal could be extended to support additional security related semantics. If I know an address simply has not been issued I can take rather more aggressive DoS prevention measures out to the cloud. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg --part1_cb.352a7237.2c4331ae_boundary-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 20:39:19 2003 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 UAA09869 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:39:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19brMh-0001iq-EF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:38:51 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6E0cpNO006619 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:38:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19brMh-0001ig-8b for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:38:51 -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 UAA09864; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:38:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19brMe-0000FC-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:38:49 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19brMe-0000F9-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:38:48 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19brLs-0001fU-Hh; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:38:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19brKx-0001RU-Nn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:37:03 -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 UAA09849 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:37:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19brKv-0000Er-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:37:01 -0400 Received: from 000-234-318.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.154.131] helo=68.27.154.131) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19brKs-0000Eo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:36:59 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030713203631.00b394b0@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Andrew Akehurst From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4. Survey of Solutions - Consent Model Cc: asrg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 13 Jul 2003 20:36:35 -0400 At 02:15 PM 7/9/2003 +0100, Andrew Akehurst wrote: > >> ........ > >> In the ultimate scenario where everyone uses some implementation of > >> this consent framework it would be fine to make no distinction. However > >> for the purposes of interoperability with non-compliant systems during > >> roll-out of the new consent framework > >> ........ > > > The "new" consent framework is not replacing the current structure of > > the Net. It is an ABSTRACT model that allows us to evaluate all anti-spam > > proposals. > >I understand, all that I meant was that implementations will have to consider >interoperability issues. I take it you feel that interoperability is not >relevant to the model itself, only to specific proposals? > >That would make some sense, but we are still proposing a change to current >behaviour in that we have new reasons why messages may not be delivered to >their intended recipient (i.e. lack of consent). Therefore some messages >which >would have been delivered under the existing system will not be delivered >under >implementations of the consent framework. > >Since you say the purpose of the framework is to evaluate anti-spam >proposals, >one of the criteria should be the likely impact on existing usage and >interaction between existing users and those who have migrated to >consent-based >software. Some of that detail will depend on implementation, but some >abstract >ideas are so fundamentally different from the current system that *any* >implementation of them would affect interoperability. > >Of course I know there are already many reasons why e-mail may not arrive >under >the current open system, such as an invalid recipient e-mail address or a >lack >of disk space at the receiver's incoming mail server. So maybe this issue is >less important (to the abstract model) than I first thought. > >Anyway, I'd be interested to hear your comments about the issue. There is a separate requirements document (https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05084.html) outlining specific point-by-point requirements and a "Technical Considerations" document (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt) which outlines more overall requirements. These are meanth to be used in conjunction with the model document. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 20:47:11 2003 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 UAA09971 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:47:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19brUG-00021X-QS for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:46:43 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6E0ke28007773 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:46:40 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19brUG-00021I-ML for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:46:40 -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 UAA09965; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:46:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19brUE-0000HB-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:46:38 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19brUD-0000H8-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:46:37 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19brTe-0001yE-5K; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:46:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19brT0-0001xx-PE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:45:22 -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 UAA09934 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:45:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19brSy-0000GR-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:45:20 -0400 Received: from 000-234-318.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.154.131] helo=68.27.154.131) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19brSu-0000GN-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:45:18 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030713204439.00b394b0@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "C. Wegrzyn" , Kee Hinckley From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 4. Survey - Consent Model - Tokens (was Re: [Asrg] Nothing will stop spam???) Cc: Selby Hatch , Asrg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 13 Jul 2003 20:44:53 -0400 Tokens can be based on a challenge/response mechanism, can be verified by trusted third parties such as CAs, etc. The whole notion of "consent tokens" is really a very generic terms that can encompass all types of tokens. The consent framework and any consent protocols must be able to support multiple token types, and allow for extensibility so new token types can be defined. Yakov At 07:50 AM 7/9/2003 -0400, C. Wegrzyn wrote: >There are really two ways to handle this it seems. First is the notion of >"consent" token that travels with the message; this is the key that >unlocks the door on the receipient's email system. The second is the idea >of a list kept at the receipient's email system. > >The consent token traveling with the email seems to be somewhat >problematic. It would have to prevent middlemen attacks and for that to >happen the token would need to encode the source of the email message. I >believe that is a problem. For instance I have two email clients with two >different email addresses - one being the company I work at and the other >being my personal account. Now if the token includes the originating >address I would have to have two different tokens. I would think we would >want a single token regardless of where I am and whatever address I use >and that would make a lot of work. But this single token would make it >susceptible to middleman attacks. > >In the receiver side screening mechanism, the second idea, I keep track of >addresses that I am willing to accept. As noted earlier very little mail >is sent through multiple MTA's (though I can tell you of one case that it >will happen!). This is patently more simple. I both cases - the token and >screening - I need to keep something to note who to allow through. But in >the former instance the sender needs to do something as well. Seems like >more work. > >Am I missing something here? > >Peace, >Chuck Wegrzyn > > > >Kee Hinckley wrote: > >>At 9:14 PM -0600 7/7/03, Selby Hatch wrote: >> >>>I view the consent token as a separate entity from the email address. >>>The consent token would be inserted from some source (address book, >>>keyboard, token repository, etc.) into a header by the MUA >> >> >>That's in the case of my sending email to someone else. I'm trying to >>figure out how a separate consent token fits into the case of my >>subscribing to this mailing list (for instance). >> >>>Yes, unfortunately, unless you have a private domain, changing email >>>addresses requires notifying senders. But, it should not require >>>giving out new consent tokens. The consent framework should be such >> >> >>Again, recipient vs. sender issue. I should be fine receiving from >>people I've agreed to receive from. However what is the process for >>updating *their* consent to receive from *me*? And how does it work if I >>don't get the opportunity to notify them until *after* the change. (E.g. >>just got laid off.) > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jul 13 20:52:07 2003 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 UAA10074 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:52:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19brZ6-0002FJ-8J for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:51:40 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6E0peIh008627 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:51:40 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19brZ6-0002F4-49 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:51:40 -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 UAA10055; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:51:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19brZ3-0000IZ-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:51:37 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19brZ3-0000IW-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:51:37 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19brYT-00029D-U8; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:51:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19brYL-00028z-No for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:50:53 -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 UAA10025 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:50:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19brYJ-0000I1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:50:51 -0400 Received: from 000-234-318.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.154.131] helo=68.27.154.131) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19brYG-0000Hy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:50:50 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030713204802.00b34458@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] Proposal: NO_XMIT DNS record In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D2322@mou1wnexm02.verisig n.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 13 Jul 2003 20:50:30 -0400 At 01:32 PM 7/13/2003 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >I don't think that a reverse MX record should be prohibitive. > >It is fair for a reverse MX record to have a statement such as 'this is a >dialup' or 'this is a broadband consumer account' or 'this address not >issued'. But that should be seen as an input to the filter/accept criteria. >...... To put it within the consent paradigm, the RMX/rDNS data supplies information to the consent system which uses that information to make a decision on the incoming message. The user or owner of the mailbox is left free to decide how the information is acted on in the consent policy. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 20:53:08 2003 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 UAA10100 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:53:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bra5-0002Mv-3w for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:52:41 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6E0qfBR009099 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:52:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19bra4-0002Mg-Vr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:52:41 -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 UAA10093; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:52:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bra2-0000JB-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:52:38 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19bra2-0000J8-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:52:38 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19brZQ-0002Iq-UM; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:52:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19brZP-0002IZ-T4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:52:00 -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 UAA10066 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:51:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19brZN-0000Im-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:51:57 -0400 Received: from 000-234-318.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.154.131] helo=68.27.154.131) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19brZL-0000Ii-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:51:57 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030713204531.00b394b0@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: 3. Requirements - IPv6 support (was Re: [Asrg] Proposal: NO_XMIT DNS record) In-Reply-To: <20030713011546.B1981@m433> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 13 Jul 2003 20:46:28 -0400 At 01:15 AM 7/13/2003 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: >.... > > 5) Given that IPV6 will get here eventually, it's probably a good idea > to develope an IPV6 version at the same time as IPV4. >... This brings to mind a general issue, should IPv6 support be part of the requirements? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 20:57:09 2003 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 UAA10225 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:57:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19brdx-0002Yi-Ni for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:56:41 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6E0ufhk009830 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:56:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19brdx-0002YT-J1 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:56:41 -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 UAA10204; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:56:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19brdv-0000LI-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:56:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19brdu-0000LF-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:56:38 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19brdJ-0002V5-Ro; Sun, 13 Jul 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 19brcc-0002RQ-Lt for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:55:18 -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 UAA10182 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:55:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19brca-0000Kh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:55:16 -0400 Received: from 000-234-318.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.154.131] helo=68.27.154.131) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19brcW-0000KS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:55:15 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030713205231.00b3c248@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: NO_XMIT DNS record In-Reply-To: <20030713011546.B1981@m433> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 13 Jul 2003 20:54:49 -0400 At 01:15 AM 7/13/2003 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: >..... > > Let's get back to basics to see why RMX has been proposed. Trojaned >machines have been used to originate spam. The RMX proposal seeks to >set up lists of which machines can tramsit for which domains. This >misses the point of the problem. It's not the authorized MTAs we have >problems with, it's the trojaned home machines, that have no business >whatsoever connecting to port 25 (except to their own ISP) on behalf of >*ANY* domain whatsoever. > > So much for criticism; what do I propose as an improvement ? > > My proposal is for a NO_XMIT record in DNS. It effectively stands the >RMX proposal on its head. It would signify IP addresses that have no >business connecting to external MTAs. This would be very similar in >function to MAPS DUL(TM) and other lists of dynamic IP addresses. >...... Where in the DNS system would this data be stored? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 13 21:16:09 2003 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 VAA10692 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:16:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19brwM-0003KT-0y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:15:42 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6E1Ffhk012791 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:15:42 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19brwL-0003KE-U2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:15:41 -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 VAA10653; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:15:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19brwJ-0000Sm-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:15:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19brwI-0000Sj-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:15:38 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19brvh-0003E0-W2; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:15:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19brv7-0003DT-Nu for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:14:25 -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 VAA10639 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:14:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19brv5-0000SO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:14:23 -0400 Received: from mxsmta02.inithost.com ([209.235.30.104] helo=mxsmta02.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19brv4-0000SK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:14:22 -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 <20030714011211.DEMR7659.mxsmta02.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:12:11 -0400 Message-ID: <3F1203EB.8050109@garbagedump.com> From: "C. Wegrzyn" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030712 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, af, sq, ar, ar-dz, ar-bh, ar-eg, ar-iq, ar-jo, ar-kw, ar-lb, ar-ly, ar-ma, ar-om, ar-qa, ar-sa, ar-sy, ar-tn, ar-ae, ar-ye, hy, ast, eu, be, bs, bg, ca, zh, zh-cn, zh-hk, zh-sg, zh-tw, hr, cs, da, nl, nl-be, undefined, en-au, en-bz, en-ca, en-ie, en-jm, en-nz, en-ph, en-za, en-tt, en-gb, undefined, en-zw, eo, et, fo, fi, fr, fr-be, fr-ca, fr-fr, fr-lu, fr-mc, fr-ch, gl, ka, de, de-at, de-de, de-li, de-lu, de-ch, el, he, hu, is, id, ga, it, it-ch, ja, ko, ko-kp, ko-kr, lv, lt, mk-mk, ms, no, nb, nn, pl, pt, pt-br, ro, ru, gd, sr, sk, sl, es, es-ar, es-bo, es-cl, es-co, es-cr, es-do, es-ec, es-sv, es-gt, es-hn, es-mx, es-ni, es-pa, es-py, es-pe, es-pr, es-es, es-uy, es-ve, sv, sv-fi, th, tr, uk, vi, cy, xh, yi, zu MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yakov Shafranovich CC: Walter Dnes , ASRG list Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - IPv6 support (was Re: [Asrg] Proposal: NO_XMIT DNS record) References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030713204531.00b394b0@std5.imagineis.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030713204531.00b394b0@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: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:14:19 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think we should include it but not as an exclusive requirement unless there is no other solution. Chuck Wegrzyn Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > At 01:15 AM 7/13/2003 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: > >> .... >> >> 5) Given that IPV6 will get here eventually, it's probably a good idea >> to develope an IPV6 version at the same time as IPV4. >> ... > > > This brings to mind a general issue, should IPv6 support be part of > the requirements? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 14 11:34:10 2003 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 LAA29081 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:34:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19c5Ke-0004na-Et for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:33:42 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6EFXeLK018442 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:33:40 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19c5Ke-0004nN-Bu for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:33:40 -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 LAA29042; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:33:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19c5Kd-0001gv-00; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:33:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19c5Kc-0001gs-00; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:33:38 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19c5K0-0004jd-P3; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:33:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19c5Jb-0004jH-5B for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:32:35 -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 LAA28892 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:32:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19c5Ja-0001ew-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:32:34 -0400 Received: from bill.lut.ac.uk ([158.125.1.193]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19c5JX-0001ej-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:32:32 -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 19c5JT-0002OC-VO; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:32:27 +0100 Received: from [158.125.1.123] (helo=bod.lut.ac.uk) by studentpop1.lboro.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 19c5JT-0006pJ-00; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:32:27 +0100 Received: from apache by bod.lut.ac.uk with local (Exim 4.12) id 19c5JT-000694-00; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:32:27 +0100 To: "C. Wegrzyn" Message-ID: <1058196747.3f12cd0bde841@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> From: Andrew Akehurst Cc: asrg@ietf.org References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030713204531.00b394b0@std5.imagineis.com> <3F1203EB.8050109@garbagedump.com> In-Reply-To: <3F1203EB.8050109@garbagedump.com> 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-Scanner: exiscan for exim4 (http://duncanthrax.net/exiscan/) *19c5JT-0002OC-VO*NncBbx5Zc9o* X-Lboro-Filtered: bill.lut.ac.uk, Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:32:28 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: 3. Requirements - IPv6 support Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 14 Jul 2003 16:32:27 +0100 (BST) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Quoting "C. Wegrzyn" : > I think we should include it but not as an exclusive requirement unless > there is no other solution. Why not just use the generic term "IP address" in any discussions and leave it to implementation detail? If a proposed anti-spam scheme specifically relies upon some feature of IPv6 which does not exist in IPv4 then the issue becomes relevant. But in general if you're using an IP address in a way which works equally well in either protocol version then why would it matter? Many people here worry that requiring a new SMTP protocol would unnecessarily delay implementation of anti-spam solutions. Not that it's a bad idea in the long-term, but we also need short and medium-term techniques too. Surely requiring IPv6, which is not yet widely used, would have a similar delaying effect? Andrew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 14 18:53:55 2003 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 SAA04000 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:53:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cCCH-0001OL-Mf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:53:29 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6EMrT4j005343 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:53:29 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cCCH-0001O6-IK for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:53:29 -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 SAA03991; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:53:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cCCE-0001v9-00; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:53:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cCCD-0001v5-00; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:53:25 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cCBp-0001Ly-Bn; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:53:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cCBY-0001LN-IB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:52:44 -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 SAA03974 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:52:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cCBV-0001ug-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:52:41 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cCBU-0001u8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:52:40 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:51:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:39:03 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Subject: [Asrg] 0. ASRG Website 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: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:39:02 -0400 The ASRG website was updated today: http://www.irtf.org/asrg/ Changes include: 1. The updated Work Items/Research Agenda that was distributed on the mailing list last week. I have not received any feedback on the research agenda. Do we feel that it is complete? Also, a number of items on the list need volunteers. 2. The requirements document that has been distributed on the mailing list twice. Again, there has been little feedback on this document. 3. Updated links to a few of the drafts. 4. The ASRG's Interim IPR Policy that has been previously discussed on the list. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 14 21:33:40 2003 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 VAA16477 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:33:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cEgr-00033v-35 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:33:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6F1XDnr011765 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:33:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cEgq-00033g-VF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:33:12 -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 VAA16435; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:33:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cEgo-00057S-00; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:33:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cEgn-00057P-00; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:33:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cEgf-00031n-6g; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:33:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cEgI-00031Z-CR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:32:38 -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 VAA16393 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:32:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cEgF-00056k-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:32:35 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cEgE-000561-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:32:34 -0400 Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164](untrusted sender)) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with SMTP id <2003071501320401200b59cie>; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:32:05 +0000 X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0.General - News Article - NYT Reports Porn Spam Hijacking Network Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: mathew In-Reply-To: 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: <23D3B662-B664-11D7-B331-00039380F1B6@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: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:32:04 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 12:46 PM, Alan DeKok wrote: > Unless the propogation of these malware programs is quenched, I > think this incident can be taken as the start of the end for mobile > users of naked, unauthenticated, unverifiable SMTP. There are other > methods by which they can send email, and those methods will help > protect against this kind of spam attack, at least. They will? How? If the user's copy of Microsoft Outlook is capable of sending e-mail, then it doesn't matter if you authenticate or verify before allowing SMTP. It doesn't help a bit, any more than it would help to block SMTP. As long as the machine can be used to send e-mail, and can easily be compromised (i.e. is running Windows), it can be used to send spam. If necessary the spamming trojan can simply feed its messages to Outlook to send via whatever method of authentication and verification the user's ISP requires. mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 14 23:08:59 2003 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 XAA23934 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:08:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cGB7-0000VV-3z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:08:33 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6F38Xrp001879 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:08:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cGB5-0000UE-45 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:08:31 -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 XAA23895; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:08:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cGAy-00074n-00; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:08:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cGAx-00074k-00; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:08:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cG9e-0008Ua-KY; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:07:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cG9U-0008TJ-EY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:06:53 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net (sccrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.202.55]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA23748 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:06:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164](untrusted sender)) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with SMTP id <20030715030616011002j6k1e>; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 03:06:16 +0000 X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas Subject: Re: [Asrg] Forbes: Pay up Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: mathew In-Reply-To: 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: <4C831D85-B671-11D7-B331-00039380F1B6@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: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:06:16 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 09:18 PM, Alan DeKok wrote: > That is, would the possible centralization of the administration of > $$ (i.e. trust verification) be less problematic to the recipient than > spam? I could see people deciding that receiving ~100 spams/week is a > reasonable trade-off for preventing a third party from having access > to your email messages, or habits. That's why it's important to design the protocols correctly. It's perfectly possible to implement digital cash systems such that the "bank" doesn't get to see the e-mail, the sender and recipient can stay anonymous to each other, yet the recipient can be confident that his account was credited with the appropriate cash sum. There's also no reason why it would be necessary to have a centralized system. You could have a number of administration entities, just like you do for DNS etc. I've been thinking for a while that a bunch of people on this list, myself included, are pretty much convinced that the "use as much resources and as much of people's attention as you like, for free" model is fundamentally broken, and that sender-pays will be necessary. It seems to me that those of us who think "sender pays" is necessary could usefully set up a separate list to come up with requirements, and a proposed implementation model, which could then be brought back here for the inevitable nit-picking. It also seems clear to me that even if the majority think that "sender pays" won't work, that's no reason why it need be killed. Unlike many other solutions, it can quite happily "compete" with free e-mail and live or die by whether it works in the real world; it doesn't need universal adoption to be useful. mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 15 00:02:35 2003 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 AAA27944 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:02:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cH0y-0003RZ-Ak for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:02:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6F428SU013231 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:02:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cH0y-0003RK-6d for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:02:08 -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 AAA27893; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:02:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cH0v-0000Hb-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:02:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cH0v-0000HX-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:02:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cH0r-0003OE-IU; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:02:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cH0N-0003Nu-Ku for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:01:31 -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 AAA27854 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:01:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cH0L-0000Ge-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:01:29 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cH0K-0000Gb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:01:28 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (dyn-65-97.ham.dial.tht.net [134.22.65.97]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CEA883693D for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:01:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:01:24 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal: NO_XMIT DNS record Message-ID: <20030715000124.B1792@m433> References: <20030713011546.B1981@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 feenberg@nber.org on Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 07:48:42AM -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, 15 Jul 2003 00:01:24 -0400 On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 07:48:42AM -0400, Daniel Feenberg wrote > (3) You mentioned the MAPS DUL. Do systems voluntarily send their > IP address ranges to MAPS, or does MAPS generally figure it out > for themselves? If the latter, do we have any idea why they don't > cooperate? Does that indicate they won't cooperate with NO_XMIT? Will > the existence of a formal standard affect many of them? Quite a few systems give out their dynamic IP ranges voluntarily to DUL etal. It doesn't have the hardware purchase+management headaches of port-25 blocking. -- 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 Tue Jul 15 00:03:28 2003 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 AAA28032 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:03:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cH1p-0003lm-Rd for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:03:01 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6F431sh014484 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:03:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cH1p-0003lX-J4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:03:01 -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 AAA27982; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:02:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cH1n-0000Ij-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:02:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cH1m-0000Ig-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:02:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cH1o-0003cG-2u; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:03:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cH0v-0003Of-Vf for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:02:05 -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 AAA27890 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:02:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cH0t-0000HP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:02:03 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cH0t-0000HM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:02:03 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (dyn-65-97.ham.dial.tht.net [134.22.65.97]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2DBA03693D for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:02:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:01:57 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal: NO_XMIT DNS record Message-ID: <20030715000157.C1792@m433> References: <20030713011546.B1981@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 aland@freeradius.org on Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 09:04:28AM -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, 15 Jul 2003 00:01:57 -0400 On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 09:04:28AM -0400, Alan DeKok wrote > > 2) Your MTA queries someting like "host -t NO_XMIT 10.1.2.3" > > Implicit in that statement is a global manager for the list, similar > to the existing reverse map. > > i.e. You're looking up IP's, not domains. So this proposal *cannot* > be implemented by updating DNS for a domain, there *must* be a global > registry. ??? it requires updating records in a nameserver. How does it differ from "host -t MX 10.1.2.3" ? -- 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 Tue Jul 15 00:03:29 2003 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 AAA28047 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:03:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cH1q-0003m4-HG for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:03:02 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6F432rs014502 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:03:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cH1q-0003lp-D9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:03:02 -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 AAA27991; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:02:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cH1o-0000Ip-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:03:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cH1n-0000Im-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:02:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cH1o-0003hz-Tu; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:03:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cH1J-0003Ux-Sa for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:02:29 -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 AAA27934 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:02:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cH1H-0000IA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:02:27 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cH1H-0000I7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:02:27 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (dyn-65-97.ham.dial.tht.net [134.22.65.97]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7E05C3693D for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:02:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:02:29 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal: NO_XMIT DNS record Message-ID: <20030715000229.D1792@m433> References: <20030713011546.B1981@m433> <5.2.0.9.2.20030713205231.00b3c248@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: <5.2.0.9.2.20030713205231.00b3c248@std5.imagineis.com>; from research@solidmatrix.com on Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 08:54:49PM -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: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:02:29 -0400 On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 08:54:49PM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote > At 01:15 AM 7/13/2003 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: > > > My proposal is for a NO_XMIT record in DNS. It effectively stands the > >RMX proposal on its head. It would signify IP addresses that have no > >business connecting to external MTAs. This would be very similar in > >function to MAPS DUL(TM) and other lists of dynamic IP addresses. > >...... > > Where in the DNS system would this data be stored? yar (yet another record), just like MX (or the proposed RMX). -- 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 Tue Jul 15 00:58:52 2003 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 AAA02976 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:58:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cHtS-0007S1-3z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:58:26 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6F4wQJO028641 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:58:26 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cHtR-0007Rs-Af for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:58:25 -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 AAA02900; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:58:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cHtO-0001UD-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:58:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cHtN-0001UA-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:58:21 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cHt2-0007Mb-Nj; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:58:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cHsQ-0007M9-N4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:57:22 -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 AAA02825 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:57:18 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cHsN-0001TG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:57:19 -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 19cHsM-0001TD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:57:18 -0400 Received: (cpmta 8453 invoked from network); 14 Jul 2003 21:57:18 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.65) with SMTP; 14 Jul 2003 21:57:18 -0700 X-Sent: 15 Jul 2003 04:57:18 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:55:42 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:25:16 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE: [Asrg] 4. Survey of Solutions - Consent Model 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, 15 Jul 2003 00:25:16 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>CONSENT - an expression of wanting to receive specific email >LACK OF CONSENT - an expression of not wanting to receive >specific email or absence of prior CONSENT I think that at various stages of incoming message triage there are various things that need to be done, and there is at least some natural ordering of those operations that ought to take place. First and foremost, I think there needs to be things that are strictly envelope/header related. There might be some specific and familiar senders whose messages are NEVER to be delivered, or whose messages are ALWAYS going to be delivered (although perhaps with subsequent modifications!), and there might be some messages (many, in practice) which can't be decided or handled on the basis of header alone. Sometimes individual message header lines will need examination and qualification. Second, messages often consist of multiple parts. Those parts can require individual, further attention... decoding, name and format testing, content scanning, or whatever. In some cases, a multipart message needs to have one or more parts removed; it's even possible that an originally multipart message might be reduced to a single-part message before releasing the message to the mail client software or ongoing MTA. Third, both within individual parts and within entire messages I think there needs to be provision to call external processing modules (which might be user or corporate-written) to provide additional decision-making options. These might be individual batch-type processes, or DLLs, or Web services, or any of a variety of other technologies. The important thing is that the processing of messages can be customized by user-written code in a multitude of ways. >>I agree with you that CONSENT has not been defined properly, I >am wondering >how we should redefine it properly.Maybe something like this: > >CONSENT - an expression of wanting to receive email from a >specific SENDER >LACK OF CONSENT - an expression of not wanting to receive email from a >specific SENDER or absence of prior CONSENT for that SENDER I think that "LACK OF CONSENT" needs to be further qualified with DENIAL (an expression of NOT wanting to receive mail from a specific, known sender) as opposed to simple "not (yet) authorized". >>However, we need to take into account filters which check not [only just] >>for specific senders, but rather for specific types of email. Perhaps the two >definitions above should be combined. > In our R&D of Message Sniffer we've developed a model for consent which fits very well in this discussion. I recommend that the ASRG adopt this generalization of our model for defining consent: > There seem to be really 4 cases, so perhaps CONSENT should be defined within these 4 cases: > 1. CONSENT - a direct expression of wanting to receive email from a sender. > 2. SOFT CONSENT - an indirect expression of wanting to receive email from a sender. I'm not sure I understand here (yet?) the point being made with "direct" versus "indirect" on these first two cases. Is #2 a "default - unrecognized sender" situation and #1 a known sender from which mail is ALWAYS desired (i.e. "whitelist")? > 3. SOFT DENIED CONSENT - an indirect expression of wanting not to receive email from a sender. > 4. DENIED CONSENT - a direct expression of wanting not to receive email from a sender. Likewise...? > NOTE: 2 and 3 are required to handle anonymous senders. I think that 2 and 3 also might be required to handle cases where a qualitative decision is made (i.e. messages not specifically "whitelisted" or "blacklisted"). But there are further cases that you're not considering here, and that is at least equally important. It's not just whether a message is actually desired for delivery, but also how to handle cases where a message is NOT to be delivered to the original addressee. Is the message to be simply blackholed? Is a forged "destination mailbox unknown" reply to be returned? Is a polite reply to be returned requesting that the message be resent without attachments or HTML or encoding or whatever? Is the message simply to be bounced back? > In the above also: > Direct Expression = an explicit white rule or black rule. > Indirect Expression = expression by the evaluation of some mechanism chosen by the recipient including any kind of filtering engine. Ah, okay. > Sender = defined by any combination of Sender IP or email route, Might it be useful to provide for coherency of message routing? e.g. a message with a From: address of HOTMAIL.COM or AOL.COM but which has passed through a mail server or relay (say) in China or Korea or some other distant country? Or, say, a message with wildly incoherent dates in Received: headers or Date: header? > Sender address, or other Authentication mechanisms. The recipient may define any of these that may be required to define a particular sender, and may also define which authentication mechanisms (if any) are acceptable. Note that this might not be only based on the headers. In particular, one might require that a message from a certain original sender MUST be signed with that sender's specific sig file or PGP key or something in order to be considered "authenticated". Certain senders (say, specific Yahoogroups mailing lists) for instance might NEVER legitimately contain attachments. If someone spoofs a popular Yahoogroups mailing list as the "sender" but actually still sends an attachment (which that group should NEVER be sending) then that's evidence of a forged From: address and/or an unauthenticated sender. > If all of the above are acceptable then a policy of consent could be established and utilized in a very clear way: > FIRST: Each inbound message is evaluated first against the sender policy to define "Sender" for the sake of evaluation. This definition may include the "Unknown Sender" which would limit policy evaluation to "SOFT" policies (2 and 3 above). Note also that "authentication mechanisms" may be defined by the recipient to support DNSbl or other services such as Bonded Sender mechanisms, or any other mechanisms that may arise. > SECOND: The message is then evaluated against the consent policy to define the case that matches the message. This includes (in case 2 and 3) the application of any evaulation mechanisms that the user may define to evaluate the content of the message or evaluate it's other characteristics. > THIRD: A specific action mapped to the identified case in the policy should be executed. For example, reject the message, submit the message to some process, redirect the message to some mailbox, some combination of actions. > As SOFT evaluations can be difficult to quantify and must be open to new mechanisms that become available in future I recommend that a "Consent Definition Language" be developed that provides for specific actions based on the evaluation of the message against the policy, and that in SOFT cases (2 and 3) the "Consent Definition Language" be extensible to take into account results that may be returned from the soft evaulation mechanisms. In the ultimate case of this, you really end up wanting to write a program... do we need yet another programming language? Personally, I'd favor the use of SPITBOL for stuff like this... it's probably about the most powerful language there is for text processing and pattern recognition and data structure manipulation... and that's what this whole process is really all about. SPITBOL has the additional nice property that one can bring in new program segments dynamically according to stages already passed or decisions already made... so that the program can be easily extended at runtime to add new rules or whatever, based on (say) specific senders or specific types of message content. It's hard to imagine how one would devise a specific "Consent Definition Language" that doesn't end up being in essence a "programming language" (and that's NOT a bad thing, necessarily, but I'd hate to see the "standard" set to use a specific language, especially if that language ends up being less satisfactory for this use than something already existing such as SPITBOL or whatever). > For example, some "tests" may return weights, others may return probabilities, others may return categories of content, others may return specific heuristics that fail. Sure. And some processes might need the intermediate results resulting from prior processing. Others might be independent, and in that case it would also be nice to allow multiple tests on the message to perhaps proceed in parallel (multitasking/multiprocessing/whatever) so as to reduce overall time spent in processing each message. > However, in general there structure of a working policy model tends to be hierarchiacal so an XML based framework can be very efficient. I've heard XML called a LOT of things although I don't think that I can remember too many times that it was accused of being "efficient". :-) Just because XML is presently trendy is NO reason IMHO to impose that degree of overhead onto anything as core as E-mail processing. In another list I'm on we've been discussing the XML overhead/performance issues and found that a typical situation results in XML record descriptors taking twice as much time (or more) than a simple delimited data representation. (And I think that it often can take a LOT more than even that...) > As XML is naturally extensible then so would a "Consent Definition Language (CDL)" based on XML. Honestly, there is nearly NOTHING that is especially more "extensible" about XML than there is with MANY other data representations. I have a number of objections to XML in principle, largely based on the fact that individual field names have to be parsed again and again for EVERY record handled... and not just field names, but also the higher-level issues of ensuring that every required field is present for every record... > In the interests of sharing, proofing, and evaluating CDL based policies there should be a mechanism for defining standarized representations of tests. Ultimately, again, this is going down a slippery slope to defining a new programming language... and I simply don't think that's necessary here. There are a number of languages that could be used, from primitive languages like C to braindead RegEx-based things like Perl or "real" pattern-matching languages like SNOBOL or SPITBOL. Ultimately, I suspect that individual implementations are likely to be done in whatever language the implementor is most comfortable with. That's perhaps the way it should be. Despite the fact that I *personally* think that SPITBOL would be *wonderful* for writing stuff like this, I recognize that a lot of people aren't familiar with it and would probably pick Perl or something instead just because that's all they know. I'm not even sure, really, that we have to go all that far in terms of defining what the actual consent definition language or corresponding data representations are... I'm not all that convinced that we'll ever see (or even that we SHOULD) a single standardized worldwide agreement for stuff like this, and different mail filtering systems and tools are likely to develop their own approaches and techniques. (And if someone does a distinctly "better" one, hopefully it will win out even over a "standard" one.) > For example, specific DNSbl tests that are "well known" may have names names defined for them where those names would be adopted by the community in the same way well known ports are adopted for services. I think it probably makes more sense to simply provide a mechanism (or better, several) for calling external processing units. Then the script (or whatever) can add whatever steps a person wishes. Again, though, a lot of these are implementation issues within a particular filter; I'm not sure we have to produce anything to that level. > Any such namimg conventions should be an enhancemnet rather than a requirement in the CDL. For example, if a recipient wishes to leverage a DNSbl (or other service) that does not have a "well known name" then the definition of the test in the policy should be clear and consistent and no more difficult to implement in the CDL than any other DNSbl. > Similar guildelines should be in place for the implementation other SOFT mechanicsms that might be used for: authentication (defining the sender), or developing SOFT CONCENT (such as filtering systems such as Message Sniffer, Spam Assassin, Bogo Filter, and others...) Good examples of external procedures which might be used within the consent model. > Based on personal experience, the framework defined above _should_ be able to encoumpass all of the current and proposed mechanisms used for curbing abuse without significant difficulty or complexity. Perhaps, although it sounds awfully complex to me (and specifically I really don't see why we need to jump onto the currently-trendy XML bandwagon here). The real issue, I think, is how far we're going to go toward writing the actual filtering application as part of the consent model standard (and even, for that matter, whether we NEED a standard consent description). Even just simple "whitelists" or "blacklists" don't always tell the story... for example, I might have a Yahoogroup I'm a subscriber to but that group (which I might whitelist) should **never** send me a message containing (say) an executable attachment. If it does, I definitely want to (at a minimum) trash the untrusted attachment. Likewise, the mere presence of a blacklisted domain reference in a message may not be enough to justify t-canning the message... for instance, the messages I get from the suespammers.org domain might refer to a particularly heinous spammer or quote from one of their E-mail spams, and I wouldn't want to t-can the message just because of that. I guess I personally feel that what we need to do more is to establish that there are certain broad areas that will typically be used to perform triage on incoming E-mails, whether at the user level or at the domain or ISP service level. These areas include header-level coherency and tests (acceptable user identity, no routing through known open relays, etc) as well as content-based tests (no HTML-burdened content, no obscured URLs, no bogus HTML tags, no obscured content tricks, no embedded images, no known-disreputable URLs or domains or IP addresses, no attachments (or maybe no executable attachments) etc etc) and that we need to provide for different sender-specific rulesets for specific authenticated familiar senders, specific familiar disreputable senders, and unfamiliar senders. I still think that it is absolutely essential that HTML-burdened content (or at least large classes of frequently-abused HTML) and presence of attachments or encoded message text should be offered as an optional (and probably recommended!) cause for denial of delivery of messages from unfamiliar 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 Tue Jul 15 01:00:31 2003 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 BAA03191 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:00:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cHv2-0007sy-LA for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:00:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6F504N2030306 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:00:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cHv2-0007sj-06 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:00:04 -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 AAA03124; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:59:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cHuz-0001Xh-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:00:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cHuy-0001Xc-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:00:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cHuz-0007pd-8u; Tue, 15 Jul 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 19cHuO-0007e4-Kr for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:59:24 -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 AAA03026 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:59:20 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cHuL-0001W2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:59:21 -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 19cHuL-0001Vu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:59:21 -0400 Received: (cpmta 9588 invoked from network); 14 Jul 2003 21:59:19 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.66) with SMTP; 14 Jul 2003 21:59:19 -0700 X-Sent: 15 Jul 2003 04:59:19 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:58:58 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:28:31 -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 forms Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 15 Jul 2003 00:28:31 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> I would suggest web-forms for customer contact. > As a customer, I despise them. So as a vendor I'm not likely to want to rely on them. > Why don't I like them? > - inability to contact multiple vendors in one message - no record of the message I sent in my outbox - unable to use them offline - no easy way to keep vendor contact information in my address book - repeated information I have to enter every time I converse with the vendor > They put all the convenience on the vendor, and none with the customer. APPLAUSE!!! :-) I couldn't agree more... it's a ROYAL nuisance to be "required" to contact a company through a Web form instead of a real E-mail address. I won't do business, as a matter of principle, with companies which try to insert such barriers between themselves and their customers. 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 Jul 15 01:04:30 2003 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 BAA03537 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:04:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cHyt-00083w-MH for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:04:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6F543J6030986 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:04:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cHyt-00083h-J0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:04:03 -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 BAA03497; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:03:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cHyq-0001dI-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:04:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cHyq-0001dF-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:04:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cHyq-00081o-RH; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:04:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cHyF-0007yi-5k for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:03:23 -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 BAA03433 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:03:19 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cHyC-0001cK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:03:20 -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 19cHyB-0001cG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:03:19 -0400 Received: (cpmta 11581 invoked from network); 14 Jul 2003 22:03:19 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.65) with SMTP; 14 Jul 2003 22:03:19 -0700 X-Sent: 15 Jul 2003 05:03:19 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:03:17 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:32:50 -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 forms Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 15 Jul 2003 00:32:50 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Most contact webforms in reality send email to one or more persons at the company anyway. The question is that companies do not want to provide their email addresses on website (harvesting and other reasons) and trust what has come from their website rather from direct email. > So the problem is in trying to extend trust that vendor see from their webform to email sender. One such mechanism is to have vendors display to the users on website email addresses such as "sales-xxxxx@domain.com" where xxxxxx corresponds to sessionid of the visitor to their website and exist for certain small period of time. Because session ids can be unique and with 8 hex characters there can be more then enough of them to not be repeated for a long time while the actual email (for example "sales-18f83a73@elan.net") is not too long to not allow user to write it down or copy it over to the mail client software. Relaying on session ids will also allow to trace those who harvest and immediatly send spam as you can then look at the logs and see what ip address was responsible. You know, two can play at that game... how do you think those arrogant companies would like it if the customer wouldn't give them an E-mail address or telephone number either, but instead gave them a URL of our personal homepage webform and forced THEM to reply to US that way, too? Turnabout, after all, IS fair play... Ultimately, what's more important is to control spamming REGARDLESS of where they got the E-mail address 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 Tue Jul 15 01:08:37 2003 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 BAA03883 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:08:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cI2s-00007X-Ec for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:08:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6F58AwM000457 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:08:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cI2s-00007I-Aa for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:08:10 -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 BAA03864; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:08:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cI2p-0001iQ-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:08:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cI2o-0001iN-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:08:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cI2j-0008VQ-7j; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:08:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cI27-0008Ir-JR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:07:23 -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 BAA03761 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:07:19 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cI24-0001hW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:07:20 -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 19cI23-0001hT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:07:19 -0400 Received: (cpmta 14437 invoked from network); 14 Jul 2003 22:07:19 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.66) with SMTP; 14 Jul 2003 22:07:19 -0700 X-Sent: 15 Jul 2003 05:07:19 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:05:38 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:35:11 -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] Webforms Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 15 Jul 2003 00:35:11 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>Why don't I like them? >> >>- inability to contact multiple vendors in one message >>- no record of the message I sent in my outbox >>- unable to use them offline >>- no easy way to keep vendor contact information in my address book >>- repeated information I have to enter every time I converse with the vendor You forgot another... being forced to compose your mail using those stupid little braindead tiny Web form windows, instead of being able to use your familiar and preferred E-mail client and a full[er] screen window to do so (perhaps even supporting voice-to-text or spellcheckers or word completion or whatever other nice features your mail client has). 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 Jul 15 01:38:32 2003 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 BAA07008 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:38:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cIVp-0002Kk-Vf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:38:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6F5c5NJ008964 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:38:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cIVp-0002KV-S8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:38:05 -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 BAA06952; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:38:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cIVm-0002Vn-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:38:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cIVl-0002Vk-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:38:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cIVl-0002Ia-JO; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:38:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cIV9-00027Y-7f for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:37:23 -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 BAA06870 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:37:19 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cIV6-0002UN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:37:20 -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 19cIV4-0002UE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:37:19 -0400 Received: (cpmta 29691 invoked from network); 14 Jul 2003 22:37:19 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.65) with SMTP; 14 Jul 2003 22:37:19 -0700 X-Sent: 15 Jul 2003 05:37:19 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:36:21 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:05:54 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] draft-crocker-spam-techconsider 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, 15 Jul 2003 01:05:54 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Regarding the definition of "spam", I think it's important to note that other things are reducing the usability of email. One of my friends reports to me that he's presently getting some 150 spam E-mails a day. :-( While I get something like that E-mail volume, only a fraction of the ones I receive are spam. > While spam control cannot aim for a complete solution to all email problems, I agree! > ...it seems to me that the majority of schemes can address annoying (often: bulk) mail messages beyond what's commonly summed up as "spam". My present mail filtering system attempts to deal with a lot of that annoying stuff. For example, not only does it strip all HTML-burdened attachments out of my incoming messages, and does a lot of spam triage based on a variety of rules, but it also removes things like most sorts of ads that some mail providers add to their outgoing messages. > For example, reliable sender tracing might help to track down MTAs sending erroneous bounces (to header addresses) on huge mailing lists, and many schemes also work against worms propagating via email. Removing executable attachments from most incoming E-mails (at least from senders who are unfamiliar or not specifically authorized to send executable attachments) is a great way to put the bite on worms and viruses and trojans that propagate by E-mail. If half a dozen of the biggest ISPs would implement ONLY JUST THAT (i.e. recipients need to specifically authorize receipt of executable attachments from specific senders) it would GREATLY reduce the virus/worm/trojan problem. > A further evaluation point (or a more specific way of looking at the costs) is required. On the Internet of today, ISPs and ISP personnel who try to limit the amount of spam originating from their networks are punished by multiple sides (spam fighting requires additional hardware and staff, and you mainly reduce your customer base)---and yet those who invest in spam control mechanisms despite all the disadvantages (here I'm still talking about outgoing email) receive no bonus by the current control mechanisms at the receiver side if something goes wrong (and you can never quite avoid this, of course). I think that the most practical place to implement filtering is at the recipient end, their ISP, and/or their domain provider. That's where the BENEFIT is mostly felt from the filtering, so that's where the person is MOTIVATED. That's NOT to say that ISPs shouldn't take responsibility to come down (and HARD, and FAST) on their users which can be documented as sending spam. > On the other hand, I think that systems which rely just on cooperation by the receiving side or the originating end user discard a lot of potential. Perhaps, but that potential comes at a HIGH cost and I'm not sure that the cost justifies itself. > Finally, a rule of thumb I find pretty handy at times: does the system actually reduce the amount of email that has to be transmitted and read by end users? Fighting spam by generating more mail messages is quite insane, but many people think its a solution because they chose a restricted, local point of view. I still like my idea of a user getting (with whatever frequency) an automatically-generated E-mail of "mail messages being held" (along with the specific reasons why each one is being held up) with the ability to rapidly specify which (if any) of them should be delivered or bounced or whatever, One of my earliest admonitions as a programmer was that "programs must not only WORK, they must also APPEAR to work." It's important, I think, that users see (at least in summary form) what things are being filtered out by their established policies, so they can tune their rules or (in specific cases) override the pre-established handling. It also can give them reassurance that their rules ARE IN FACT catching (hopefully) the great majority of the stuff they'd otherwise have to deal 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 Jul 15 01:57:06 2003 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 BAA08911 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:57:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cIno-0003aK-2b for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:56:40 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6F5ueJt013774 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:56:40 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cInn-0003a5-Vk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:56:39 -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 BAA08844; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:56:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cInC-0003Wi-Ak; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:56:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cImY-0003VQ-DG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:55:22 -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 BAA08718 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:55:18 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cImV-0002yh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:55:19 -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 19cImU-0002ye-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:55:18 -0400 Received: (cpmta 27520 invoked from network); 14 Jul 2003 22:55:18 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.64) with SMTP; 14 Jul 2003 22:55:18 -0700 X-Sent: 15 Jul 2003 05:55:18 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:53:56 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:23:29 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through 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, 15 Jul 2003 01:23:29 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Just ran across this quote from the John Gilmore of the EFF (http://www.politechbot.com/p-04927.html): > ----snip---- After years of divisive discussions, a very similar pledge/oath/policy was what EFF was able to come to agreement on: > "Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages reach their intended recipients." > Perhaps none of us has yet come up with a silver bullet to solve the problem of spam -- but it IS within our power to solve the problem of overzealous anti-spam measures. ----snip---- That's one advantage of my Permissions List approach... at least implemented at the recipient end... anything it filters out HAS "reached" its "intended recipient" and it's NOT required that ANY recipient actually READ all their incoming mail. You might subscribe to a daily newspaper, but I doubt that ANYBODY reads everything in it. I get a lot of E-mails which (based on who they're from or what the subject line says) I know I don't *need* to read. I read some, skip some, just archive some others. The Permissions List combined with content filters would help me to decide which E-mails I want to read... just as an executive secretary might decide which mails a busy executive wants to read, or which telephone calls he might want to take or return. The daily digest of mail held helps me further by highlighting the reasons why each given message was held, and in most cases I could just scan down the list and concur with what the system decided. 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 Jul 15 06:55:38 2003 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 GAA13708 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 06:55:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cNSk-00079g-8H for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 06:55:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6FAtEY4027500 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 06:55:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cNSk-00079T-4L for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 06:55:14 -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 GAA13698; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 06:55:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cNSV-0000bf-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 06:55:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cNRw-0000bM-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 06:54:24 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cNRZ-00072d-7y; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 06:54:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cNRU-00072S-7v for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 06:53:56 -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 GAA13664 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 06:53:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cNRL-0000b9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 06:53:47 -0400 Received: from mxsmta02.inithost.com ([209.235.30.104] helo=mxsmta02.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cNQv-0000az-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 06:53:21 -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 <20030715105042.TRZJ7659.mxsmta02.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com> for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 06:50:42 -0400 Message-ID: <3F13DD04.5060000@garbagedump.com> From: "C. Wegrzyn" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030712 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, af, sq, ar, ar-dz, ar-bh, ar-eg, ar-iq, ar-jo, ar-kw, ar-lb, ar-ly, ar-ma, ar-om, ar-qa, ar-sa, ar-sy, ar-tn, ar-ae, ar-ye, hy, ast, eu, be, bs, bg, ca, zh, zh-cn, zh-hk, zh-sg, zh-tw, hr, cs, da, nl, nl-be, undefined, en-au, en-bz, en-ca, en-ie, en-jm, en-nz, en-ph, en-za, en-tt, en-gb, undefined, en-zw, eo, et, fo, fi, fr, fr-be, fr-ca, fr-fr, fr-lu, fr-mc, fr-ch, gl, ka, de, de-at, de-de, de-li, de-lu, de-ch, el, he, hu, is, id, ga, it, it-ch, ja, ko, ko-kp, ko-kr, lv, lt, mk-mk, ms, no, nb, nn, pl, pt, pt-br, ro, ru, gd, sr, sk, sl, es, es-ar, es-bo, es-cl, es-co, es-cr, es-do, es-ec, es-sv, es-gt, es-hn, es-mx, es-ni, es-pa, es-py, es-pe, es-pr, es-es, es-uy, es-ve, sv, sv-fi, th, tr, uk, vi, cy, xh, yi, zu MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: asrg@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Summaries online... Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 15 Jul 2003 06:52:52 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Given the recent "late postings" I have seen, I thought I would remind you of a very nice feature of the ASRG group. For those of you that feel the need to discuss an issue I might suggest you motor over to http://www.elan.net/~william/asrg/index.htm . William Leibzon has done a very nice job of categorizing all the topics and pointing to relevant emails that summarize the discussion. Chuck Wegrzyn _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 15 08:50:12 2003 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 IAA16794 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:50:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cPFZ-00044C-FE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:49:46 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6FCnjUa015633 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:49:45 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cPFZ-000444-AN for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:49:45 -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 IAA16774; Tue, 15 Jul 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 19cPEr-0003wk-H5; Tue, 15 Jul 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 19cPEX-0003wF-CA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:48:41 -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 IAA16736 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:48:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cPEV-0001bI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:48:39 -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 19cPEL-0001bC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:48:29 -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 19cPD5-0002ua-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:47:12 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0.General - News Article - NYT Reports Porn Spam Hijacking Network In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:32:04 EDT." <23D3B662-B664-11D7-B331-00039380F1B6@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: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:47:11 -0400 mathew wrote: > On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 12:46 PM, Alan DeKok wrote: > > ... this incident can be taken as the start of the end for mobile > > users of naked, unauthenticated, unverifiable SMTP. There are other > > methods by which they can send email, and those methods will help > > protect against this kind of spam attack, at least. > > They will? How? By spreading the load of spam detection & filtering. > If the user's copy of Microsoft Outlook is capable of sending e-mail, > then it doesn't matter if you authenticate or verify before allowing > SMTP. Who is the "you" in that sentence? a) owner of the domain/MTA the sender is claiming to be from b) the final recipient If by 'you", you mean "the recipient", then of course authentication doesn't help, because the recipient *can't* authenticate the sender. And why is the recipient responsible for authenticating the identity of all senders? Does no one think that's a stupid idea? If, on the other hand, the roaming sender authenticates to his home domain, and uses his home MTA for email, then the home domain now has the opportunity to be a Good Netizen, and filter out the crap before spewing it onto the net. This won't happen all of the time, but it will happen sometimes. > It doesn't help a bit, any more than it would help to block SMTP. Only if you assume that the recipient is the one doing ALL of the work of spam detection & filtering, and that no one else on the network does anything. Spam filtering on outbound messages is perfectly permissible in many cases, and legally required in many. Do you really think that it's legally acceptable for businesses to allow their employees to send (whatever illegal content) to each other, or to people outside of the company? > As long as the machine can be used to send e-mail, and can easily be > compromised (i.e. is running Windows), it can be used to send spam. Nonsense. It can be used to *try* to send spam, but there's no guarantee that the recipient will be bothered by those attempts, or even know about them. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 15 10:12:08 2003 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 KAA20073 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:12:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cQWt-000848-1F for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:11:43 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6FEBh4q030998 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:11:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cQWs-00083t-S2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:11:42 -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 KAA20014; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:11:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cQWD-0007vn-LN; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:11:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cQVp-0007vS-O5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:10:37 -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 KAA19879 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:10:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cQVm-0002ET-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:10:34 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cQVc-0002By-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:10:24 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:08:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:56:05 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'mathew'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: 6. Proposal - Sender Pays (was RE: [Asrg] Forbes: Pay up ) 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: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:56:04 -0400 Mathew, it sounds like you are volunteering to lead some work into the "sender pays" approach. Good. Do you have any preliminary ideas? Is what you're thinking along the lines of Selling Interrupt Rights or SHRED or is it a different approach? IBM's Selling Interrupt Rights: http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/414/forum.pdf Balachander Krishamurthy's SHRED: http://www.research.att.com/~bala/papers/shred-ietf56-talk.pdf > -----Original Message----- > From: mathew [mailto:meta@pobox.com] > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 11:06 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Forbes: Pay up > > It seems to me that those of us who think "sender pays" is necessary > could usefully set up a separate list to come up with > requirements, and > a proposed implementation model, which could then be brought > back here > for the inevitable nit-picking. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 15 10:35:39 2003 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 KAA21975 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:35:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cQte-0000v0-Bd for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:35:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6FEZEod003528 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:35:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cQtd-0000up-H8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:35:13 -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 KAA21964; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:35:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cQta-0002VU-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:35:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cQtU-0002VR-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:35:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cQtR-0000rl-F9; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:35:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cQsv-0000qd-4n for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:34:29 -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 KAA21934 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:34:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cQss-0002VE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:34:26 -0400 Received: from mnr1.microneil.com ([216.88.36.96]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cQsh-0002Uw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:34:15 -0400 Received: by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix, from userid 93) id B36C729C077; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:33:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MicroNeil.com (mail.microneil.com [216.88.36.161]) by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4656E29C075 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:33:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MNR01 [216.88.36.10] by MicroNeil.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.05) id A09A25FB0112; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:32:58 -0400 From: "Pete McNeil" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 4. Survey of Solutions - Consent Model Message-ID: <003401c34add$fc080e00$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: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 X-Declude-Spoolname: D109a112.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: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:32:57 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >I think that at various stages of incoming message triage >there are various >things that need to be done, and there is at least some >natural ordering of >those operations that ought to take place. I agree. However the ordering may not follow the processing of an incoming message. We may need to use a subsumption architecture to allow policies to syncrhonize with the way the email system implementing that policy operates. >First and foremost, I think there needs to be things that are strictly >envelope/header related. There might be some specific and The basis of a consent policy is most naturally expressed as a hierarchy of rules rooted in the sender - so the first step in implementing a policy is to define "SENDER". Envelope and header information are generally the right place to start, but they don't always establish the SENDER by themselves. >Second, messages often consist of multiple parts. Those parts >can require >individual, further attention... decoding, name and format >testing, content >scanning, or whatever. In some cases, a multipart message >needs to have one or >more parts removed; it's even possible that an originally >multipart message >might be reduced to a single-part message before releasing the >message to the >mail client software or ongoing MTA. I'm not sure it makes sense for the consent policy to get involved in modifying the message in any way although I do agree that establishing the correct policy to execute may require some decoding. >Third, both within individual parts and within entire messages >I think there >needs to be provision to call external processing modules In order for a consent policy to be an open document it must be possible to establish a collection of "tests" to establish the inputs required for executing the policy, and also some "actions" for responding to policy decisions. Both of these will be somewhat implementation specific. In an open architecture, which I believe can be expressed in an XML compatible format, "tests" and "actions" would be defined with implementation specific definitions. (The following introduces the idea that CONSENT can be based not only on SENDER but also on other "features" that can be defined in the POLICY. The new, obvious feature here is content... with the idea being that a RECIVER might grant CONSENT to a SENDER only for specific CONTENT. It's important to realize that the rules are only formally based on specific tests and that CONTENT is only a policy-specific concept implemented by a combination of tests... if required. Completely artificial example/illustration: $RESULT = 54 ... I had to bake that on the fly, I hope it makes sense. Presumably, the above defines a TEST for the content of a message based on an program that uses heuristics. The program "/usr/bin/heuristic-test" is called with one parameter which is the message itself ($MESSAGE). The TEST is TRUE if the $RESULT code of the program is equal to 54. The test could just as easily been based on some feature of the MTA software (such as a DNSbl lookup), some environment variable, etc... The concept is that defining the SENDER and the CONTENT requires that some TESTs be executed. These TESTs should be defined in an way that is implementation specific. Similarly the ACTIONS should also be defined this way. This allows the POLICIES section to be shared anywhere that the TESTs and ACTIONs named in the policy can be executed, and allows those TESTs and ACTIONs to be defined for each system independently. There should also be some "well known" tests that MUST be implemented in order to be compliant... these would be tests such as the connecting IP, envelope information, header information, etc. >> 1. CONSENT - a direct expression of wanting to receive email from a >sender. > >> 2. SOFT CONSENT - an indirect expression of wanting to receive email >from a sender. > >I'm not sure I understand here (yet?) the point being made >with "direct" versus >"indirect" on these first two cases. Is #2 a "default - >unrecognized sender" >situation and #1 a known sender from which mail is ALWAYS >desired (i.e. >"whitelist")? Yes. Ultimately these are only conceptual constructs. A policy always establishes a boolean CONSENT or DENIED CONSENT for a given message, however in establishing a definition of how a policy document works it is useful to distinguis between CONSENT which is based on a known sender and SOFT CONSENT which is based on an evaluation of a message from an unknown sender. The primary differnce between them is the relative error rate. With SOFT CONSENT / SOFT DENIED CONSENT the policy is more likely to err so the ACTIONs that are taken in these cases should be "softer". Note the careful use of _should_. While it is possible for a given policy implementation to delete any messages that fail a given DNSbl or heuristic test if that fits the needs of the RECEIVER, the RECEIVER would be wise consider that such a harsh policy might have unintended consequences due to the error rates of these tests. As a result they _should_ chose a less aggressive ACTION in these cases such as rejecting the message or holding the message for review. >> 3. SOFT DENIED CONSENT - an indirect expression of wanting not to >receive email from a sender. > >> 4. DENIED CONSENT - a direct expression of wanting not to receive >> email >from a sender. > >Likewise...? Consider case 1 and 4 (CONSENT / DENIED CONSENT) like a white and black rule respectively. There is no room for interpretation (save that which determines the SENDER) Consider case 2 and 3 (SOFT: CONSENT / DENIED CONSENT) like a collection of tests that attempt to evaluate the message based on content and other rules... These tests will have a varying degree of confidence in all cases. > >> NOTE: 2 and 3 are required to handle anonymous senders. > >I think that 2 and 3 also might be required to handle cases >where a qualitative >decision is made (i.e. messages not specifically "whitelisted" or >"blacklisted"). Yes. Even if you know the sender, you may want to decide CONSENT based also on some other grounds... The policy model must support this. >But there are further cases that you're not considering here, >and that is at >least equally important. It's not just whether a message is >actually desired >for delivery, but also how to handle cases where a message is >NOT to be >delivered to the original addressee. Is the message to be >simply blackholed? >Is a forged "destination mailbox unknown" reply to be >returned? Is a polite >reply to be returned requesting that the message be resent >without attachments >or HTML or encoding or whatever? Is the message simply to be >bounced back? A policy will define ACTIONS that can be taken when consent is granted or denied. The ACTIONS would be defined in an open way just like the tests and would be dependent on the facilities available with that implementation. The policy would be able to define any of these actions once consent was granted or denied, and would presumably define these actions based on parameters that were established by the tests defined in policy. something like: ... # Definitions for test implementations on this system. ... # Definitions for action implementations on this system. ... # Definitions of senders (by applying tests) ... # Definitions of sender cases. ... # parameters. ... # Definitions of sender cases. ... # parameters ... # Definitions of sender cases. ... # Definitions of sender cases. ... # Definitions of sender cases. >Might it be useful to provide for coherency of message >routing? e.g. a message >with a From: address of HOTMAIL.COM or AOL.COM but which has >passed through a >mail server or relay (say) in China or Korea or some other >distant country? > >Or, say, a message with wildly incoherent dates in Received: >headers or Date: >header? Such as: (Another half baked example) attachment (which that >group should NEVER be sending) then that's evidence of a >forged From: address >and/or an unauthenticated sender. The existence of an attachment on the message could be a test and that test would be used to define the SENDER for this yahoo group. If the message had the attachment then the SENDER definition would not match and the policy would be denied by default - more specifically the UNKNOWN sender would be selected and the action policy for that case would be executed. >In the ultimate case of this, you really end up wanting to >write a program... do >we need yet another programming language? Personally, I'd I think what we want to do is establish a standard policy document in XML format and then allow the implementor to include any tools, programming languages, tests, etc... that they wish to. The purpose of a "compliant" consent policy is to standardise the definition so that consent policies can be aggregated, shared, and discussed, and so that there is a "standard" framework for developing "abuse management" tools for email. >favor the use of >SPITBOL for stuff like this... it's probably about the most >powerful language >there is for text processing and pattern recognition and data >structure >manipulation... and that's what this whole process is really >all about. SPITBOL I may wish to use Java, someone else may wish to use Lisp, and so on. The standard consent policy document should allow for any or all of these to be implemented as features of the local system. In my current thinking this is done in the TESTS and ACTIONS section where the implementor can define any number of external or internal program features that they might make available. >has the additional nice property that one can bring in new >program segments >dynamically according to stages already passed or decisions >already made... so >that the program can be easily extended at runtime to add new >rules or whatever, >based on (say) specific senders or specific types of message content. Presumably an advanced implementation of a "standard consent policy" would optimize test execution dynamically at runtime and would take advantage of any features that are available in their software. One caveat to this, however, is that highly specialized implementations may not be easily transported to other systems and may not be shareable beyond the confines of the local system. This has implications regarding the aggregation of consent policies - which can be a very powerful feature of a "standard consent policy" framework. Aggregated consent policies would allow common user policy decisions to be moved toward the gateway MTAs of a large system with profound implications for resource utilization. Highly proprietary implementations may not travel well... the result would be that policies dependent on TESTS or ACTIONS that are not available to the common policy would not be aggregated. This open architecture allows for highly specific implementations - however those who use proprietary TESTS or ACTIONS will need to understand the implications of those decisions. >It's hard to imagine how one would devise a specific "Consent >Definition >Language" that doesn't end up being in essence a "programming >language" (and I think it's possible... in fact it's probably done (see above). I'm fairly certain that the language I'm proposing can be defined without defining any specific programming language - and, in fact, that would be the point. >Others might be independent, and in that case it would also be >nice to allow >multiple tests on the message to perhaps proceed in parallel >(multitasking/multiprocessing/whatever) so as to reduce >overall time spent in >processing each message. My current thinking is that the language "presumes" all required tests are executed before a SENDER is defined (based on the results of those test). Then the correct ACTION-POLICY is implemented based on those results. The reality would be implementation specific. One would presume, for example, that a highly efficient implementation would execute only those tests required to establish each case, and that the order of test execution and policy selection would be established so that the least amount of processing would be required for each case. For example, if there is a sender defined by the connection IP and that sender has a normal delivery action policy then the engine would first test for the connection IP and having discovered that the IP matches this policy would immediately deliver the message - eliminating all other tests. HOWEVER - all of that would need to be implementation specific. It is very important for the policy definition langage to remain agnostic on implementation and programming languages if there is to be any hope for wide adoption. >I've heard XML called a LOT of things although I don't think >that I can remember >too many times that it was accused of being "efficient". :-) Well, it does at least fit the bill here. It is extensible by design, and it is fairly well understood and usually easy to grasp (look how well HTML cought on), and it translates well into databases, parsers, etc. So, on the whole I think it's the most efficient for this task. Mind you - I'm not saying that everyone, or ANYONE, should learn XML and the consent policy definition language... Presumably those who build software that implements these policies would make nice, simple, slick GUI tools for users and admins to establish policies etc. The important thing is that those poilices can be expressed in a standard way so that they can be shared, aggregated, and discussed easily. >Just because XML is presently trendy is NO reason IMHO to >impose that degree of >overhead onto anything as core as E-mail processing. In >another list I'm on >we've been discussing the XML overhead/performance issues and >found that a >typical situation results in XML record descriptors taking >twice as much time >(or more) than a simple delimited data representation. (And I >think that it >often can take a LOT more than even that...) One would presume that the XML would be parsed once when the policy chages or the system starts and after that a highly optimized engine would simply execute the tests and actions defined in the document. HTML, for example, is not necessarily a very efficient way of defining documents when measured in some ways... however it is very easy to deploy and leverage... that's what I'm going for here. >I have a number of objections to XML in principle, largely Make another recommendation then and have it compete on it's own merrits. I'm not particuarly "fond" of XML either, nor am I any expert on it, nor do I have any investment in it. HOWEVER, as an engineer I recognize that there are a lot of tools out there to work with XML, that it is a widely accepted standard, and that it has a number of characteristics that are beneficial to this task. If there is a better choice then we should go with it. Right now, I'm sticking with this because at the very least I think the structures I'm proposing with this language are sound and would likely be implemented in whatever language is selected to represent them. >Ultimately, again, this is going down a slippery slope to >defining a new >programming language... and I simply don't think that's >necessary here. There >are a number of languages that could be used, from primitive >languages like C to >braindead RegEx-based things like Perl or "real" >pattern-matching languages like >SNOBOL or SPITBOL. I think you're missing an important point. All of the languages you are talking about are procedural in nature. A policy should not be procedural because it's purpose is to capture a policy, not a procedure. Specifically the "root" construct of the problem at hand is: I want mail that is like this. I don't want mail that is like that. A procedural language is required _under the covers_ to implement the policy, but the poicy itself should not be defined procedurally. This is the same kind of separation that makes SQL powerful for managing data. The user of SQL does not need to understand how the data is stored, nor how it can be accessed, nor what the most efficient search mechanisms might be for their system. Rather, they simply say: "Give me these records"... or more precisely: Select * where x="these records"; Does that make sense? --- In the same way, a system administrator can establish a number of TESTS based on the features at their disposal... Some of these might even execute perl scripts, C++ programs, SPITBOL or other engines. But in the end, the user (or administrator) defining the policy only needs (or wants) to say: "I want mail that passes these tests." Some of the tests should be on the _MUST IMPLEMENT_ list for a compliant system. Specifically those that are "well known" and defined by this group (and the group(s) that eventually manage and contribute to a cdl). For example the test for a specific connecting IP or network. >I'm not even sure, really, that we have to go all that far in >terms of defining >what the actual consent definition language or corresponding data >representations are... I'm not all that convinced that we'll >ever see (or even >that we SHOULD) a single standardized worldwide agreement for >stuff like this, >and different mail filtering systems and tools are likely to >develop their own >approaches and techniques. (And if someone does a distinctly >"better" one, >hopefully it will win out even over a "standard" one.) You may be right, but I think it's a good idea. If for no other reason than it will provide us with a "common language" for discussing the different policies we may have or may propose, and the implications of implementing those policies. I've seen a lot of chaos on this (and other lists) because there is not yet a common language for defining policies. The cdl I've proposed does that, and more - it provides the groundwork for what could become a common standard for implementing policies. Whether it succeeds in the latter or not, the benefits of the former are significant. >> Based on personal experience, the framework defined above _should_ be >able to encoumpass all of the current and proposed mechanisms >used for curbing abuse without significant difficulty or complexity. > >Perhaps, although it sounds awfully complex to me (and >specifically I really >don't see why we need to jump onto the currently-trendy XML >bandwagon here). "trendiness" is no reason to reject a possible solution. >The real issue, I think, is how far we're going to go toward >writing the actual >filtering application as part of the consent model standard >(and even, for that >matter, whether we NEED a standard consent description). > >Even just simple "whitelists" or "blacklists" don't always >tell the story... for The point of defining a CDL is not to specify, recommend, or define any specific whitelists, blacklists, or other tests. Rather it is to define a standard framework within which those tests can be defined and how, once defined, they can be applied. >example, I might have a Yahoogroup I'm a subscriber to but >Likewise, the mere presence of a blacklisted domain reference One goal of a CDL is to provide a framework where *almost* any policy could be described - even the complex policies you describe. >I guess I personally feel that what we need to do more is to >establish that >there are certain broad areas that will typically be used to >perform triage on >incoming E-mails, whether at the user level or at the domain >or ISP service >level. These areas include header-level coherency and tests >(acceptable user >identity, no routing through known open relays, etc) as well >as content-based >tests (no HTML-burdened content, no obscured URLs, no bogus In the CDL I propose, all of these would be TEST definitions. With a CDL in place it would be easier for us to discuss, contrast, and explore these definitions. At the same time, we would be able to explore the implications of policies based on these tests. In the same way we can use the CDL to explore TEST we can also use it to explore ACTIONS. That's what the CDL is really for... It is only a hope that the CDL would be translated into actual systems that implement policies researched, reccomeneded, and documneted by this and other groups using CDL. >I still think that it is absolutely essential that >HTML-burdened content (or at >least large classes of frequently-abused HTML) and presence of >attachments or >encoded message text should be offered as an optional (and probably >recommended!) cause for denial of delivery of messages from >unfamiliar senders. That is a policy proposal. With a CDL, you could be _very precise_ about what you mean by this proposal and everyone would be able to discuss it in a common framework. I hope I've cleared things up... It was not my intent to be combative if any of my comments appeared that way. Thanks, _M _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 15 18:14:34 2003 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 SAA07935 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:14:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cY3m-0005XI-1l for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:14:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6FMEAbt021276 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:14:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cY3l-0005X5-Ui for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:14:09 -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 SAA07887; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:14:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cY3i-0006II-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:14:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cY3d-0006IF-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:14:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cY2e-0005Qm-VR; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:13:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cY22-0005QP-OQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 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 SAA07708 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:12:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cY1v-0006HV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:12:15 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.198.35]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cY1k-0006Fg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:12:04 -0400 Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164](untrusted sender)) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with SMTP id <2003071522075001300pfnmoe>; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:07:50 +0000 X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0.General - News Article - NYT Reports Porn Spam Hijacking Network Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: mathew In-Reply-To: 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: 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, 15 Jul 2003 18:07:50 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday, July 15, 2003, at 08:47 AM, Alan DeKok wrote: > mathew wrote: >> If the user's copy of Microsoft Outlook is capable of sending e-mail, >> then it doesn't matter if you authenticate or verify before allowing >> SMTP. > > Who is the "you" in that sentence? The user's ISP. > If, on the other hand, the roaming sender authenticates to his home > domain, and uses his home MTA for email, then the home domain now has > the opportunity to be a Good Netizen, and filter out the crap before > spewing it onto the net. This won't happen all of the time, but it > will happen sometimes. Filter how, though? How are you going to distinguish between e-mail generated by the computer's owner and sent by his e-mail software, and e-mail generated by malware and sent by the computer's owner's e-mail software? > Spam filtering on outbound messages is perfectly permissible in many > cases, and legally required in many. Do you really think that it's > legally acceptable for businesses to allow their employees to send > (whatever illegal content) to each other, or to people outside of the > company? So you're proposing that ISPs be required to run something like SpamAssassin on all *outgoing* e-mail, and bounce e-mail back at the user if it looks like spam? I see a problem with that--will users accept it, or will they take their money elsewhere? I know that when *I* send an e-mail, I expect it to be sent--if my ISP bounces it back because they don't like the content, it's time for me to find another ISP. mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 15 18:22:14 2003 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 SAA08619 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:22:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cYBB-0005uB-QT for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:21:49 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6FMLn8G022698 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:21:49 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cYBB-0005u1-MR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:21:49 -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 SAA08608; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:21:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cYB8-0006P4-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:21:46 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cYB2-0006P1-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:21:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cYAP-0005ma-NV; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:21:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cY9w-0005m0-MX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:20:32 -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 SAA08540 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:20:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cY9r-0006O9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:20:27 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cY9h-0006Na-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:20:17 -0400 Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164](untrusted sender)) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <20030715221910014000mshce>; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:19:10 +0000 X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas Subject: Re: 6. Proposal - Sender Pays (was RE: [Asrg] Forbes: Pay up ) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: mathew In-Reply-To: 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: <5B6D64E8-B712-11D7-8867-00039380F1B6@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, 15 Jul 2003 18:19:10 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday, July 15, 2003, at 09:56 AM, Paul Judge wrote: > Mathew, it sounds like you are volunteering to lead some work into the > "sender pays" approach. Good. Do you have any preliminary ideas? Yes, but they're in my head at the moment. > Is what you're thinking along the lines of Selling Interrupt Rights > or SHRED or is it a different approach? [...] > IBM's Selling Interrupt Rights: > http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/414/forum.pdf My thought is that something similar to "Selling Interrupt Rights" is probably what's needed, but I think it's premature to say that that's exactly right in all details. I think what I'd like to do is try and get some agreement on requirements. For instance, *I* think a fairly basic requirement should be that the user be allowed to set the interrupt price at zero, so if people want to keep on allowing the entire world to send them e-mail for free, they can do so--nobody would be forced to adopt the new system. On the other hand, I don't see the proposed "escrow" mechanism as being very worthwhile, for social reasons: it becomes a source of potential friction between sender and recipient. If the recipient decides whether to deduct the fee after receiving the e-mail, the sender is liable to take it as a personal slight. Better to always deduct the fee, which will also act as a form of market pressure to keep fees low. But hey, I could be convinced otherwise. Canonical example: You'd like to discourage your mother from sending you those endlessly-forwarded chain letters and heartwarming e-mails. If you set an interrupt price of a nickel, she might stop and think before pushing the send button ten times a day. But if you have to push a button to "punish" her and take the nickel, are you really going to do it? So anyway, should I set up a mailing list for the discussion? mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 15 21:39:45 2003 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 VAA13464 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:39:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cbGK-0006Ok-0C for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:39:20 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6G1dJCs024583 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:39:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cbGJ-0006OO-ST for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:39:19 -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 VAA13452; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:39:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cbGG-0000EH-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:39:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cbGB-0000E5-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:39:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cbF3-000652-Pu; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:38:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cbER-0005xN-AO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:37:23 -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 VAA13413 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:37:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cbEO-0000DQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:37:20 -0400 Received: from 000-232-844.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.148.181] helo=68.27.148.181) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cbEB-0000DE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:37:08 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030715213614.00bd0f00@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: mathew , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0.General - News Article - NYT Reports Porn Spam Hijacking Network Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 15 Jul 2003 21:36:15 -0400 At 06:07 PM 7/15/2003 -0400, mathew wrote: >On Tuesday, July 15, 2003, at 08:47 AM, Alan DeKok wrote: >>mathew wrote: >.... >> Spam filtering on outbound messages is perfectly permissible in many >>cases, and legally required in many. Do you really think that it's >>legally acceptable for businesses to allow their employees to send >>(whatever illegal content) to each other, or to people outside of the >>company? > >So you're proposing that ISPs be required to run something like >SpamAssassin on all *outgoing* e-mail, and bounce e-mail back at the user >if it looks like spam? > >I see a problem with that--will users accept it, or will they take their >money elsewhere? I know that when *I* send an e-mail, I expect it to be >sent--if my ISP bounces it back because they don't like the content, it's >time for me to find another ISP. Sometime back Mike Rubel proposed implementing a rate limit on outgoing messages (see http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg04616.html). If too many messages are sent within a set amount of time, they are held in queue and a message is sent to the ISP subscriber warning him about a possible infection. Same can apply to too many outgoing spam messages (see http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg04629.html). A sample warning would be as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear customer, We apologize for this intrusion. Our systems indicate that your computer attempted to send a large number of emails over the last ten minutes. Because unusually large volumes of outbound email sometimes indicate the presence of a computer virus, we wanted to check with you before proceeding. These and further emails will be placed in a temporary quarantine while we await your instructions. We respect your privacy, and will not read or otherwise disclose the messages without your permission. Please call (800) 123-4567 at your earliest convenience so that we may process your request without further delay. We appreciate your business and look forward to serving you again in the future. --Your friendly email service providers To change your notification settings, please go to: https://www.exampleisp.com/my_account_settings/web_form.php ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 15 21:39:45 2003 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 VAA13465 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:39:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cbGJ-0006Oj-Vw for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:39:20 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6G1dJHA024577 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:39:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cbGJ-0006OJ-OQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:39:19 -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 VAA13451; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:39:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cbGG-0000EE-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:39:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cbGA-0000E4-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:39:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cbF3-00064u-Ck; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:38:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cbER-0005xO-AP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:37:23 -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 VAA13411 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:37:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cbEO-0000DR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:37:20 -0400 Received: from 000-232-844.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.148.181] helo=68.27.148.181) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cbEB-0000DC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:37:08 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030715213337.00bd0f00@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: mathew , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: 6. Proposal - Sender Pays (was RE: [Asrg] Forbes: Pay up ) In-Reply-To: <5B6D64E8-B712-11D7-8867-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 15 Jul 2003 21:36:03 -0400 At 06:19 PM 7/15/2003 -0400, mathew wrote: >On Tuesday, July 15, 2003, at 09:56 AM, Paul Judge wrote: >>Mathew, it sounds like you are volunteering to lead some work into the >>"sender pays" approach. Good. Do you have any preliminary ideas? > >Yes, but they're in my head at the moment. > >> Is what you're thinking along the lines of Selling Interrupt Rights or >> SHRED or is it a different approach? >[...] >>IBM's Selling Interrupt Rights: >>http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/414/forum.pdf > >My thought is that something similar to "Selling Interrupt Rights" is >probably what's needed, but I think it's premature to say that that's >exactly right in all details. > >I think what I'd like to do is try and get some agreement on requirements. >For instance, *I* think a fairly basic requirement should be that the user >be allowed to set the interrupt price at zero, so if people want to keep >on allowing the entire world to send them e-mail for free, they can do >so--nobody would be forced to adopt the new system. Keep in mind the existing requirements document, the technical considerations document and the consent framework. Especially within the consent framework, consent tokens could be e-postage tokens. >..... >So anyway, should I set up a mailing list for the discussion? IMHO, this list is pretty good for now unless the traffic gets out of hand again. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 15 21:42:18 2003 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 VAA13554 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:42:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cbIn-0006XI-AN for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:41:53 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6G1frwW025118 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:41:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cbIn-0006X3-5w for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:41:53 -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 VAA13532; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:41:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cbIf-0000FG-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:41:46 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cbIa-0000FD-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:41:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cbHx-0006QC-8Q; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:41:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cbHr-0006Pt-Bj for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:40:55 -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 VAA13509 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:40:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cbHo-0000Eo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:40:52 -0400 Received: from 000-232-844.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.148.181] helo=68.27.148.181) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cbHb-0000Ed-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:40:41 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030715213912.02eeeec8@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] 0. ASRG Website updated In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 15 Jul 2003 21:40:16 -0400 At 06:39 PM 7/14/2003 -0400, Paul Judge wrote: >... >Changes include: > >1. The updated Work Items/Research Agenda that was distributed on the >mailing list last week. I have not received any feedback on the research >agenda. Do we feel that it is complete? Also, a number of items on the list >need volunteers. >.... Would user education go under 7. Best Practices documents? What about in addition to promulgating a set of BCPs, setting up an active organization promoting the adoption of BCPs like the Web Standards Project? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 16 00:59:52 2003 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 AAA17446 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:59:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ceO0-0005H5-3O for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:59:28 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6G4xSrr020269 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:59:28 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ceNz-0005Gq-VT for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:59:27 -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 AAA17423; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:59:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ceNw-0002QN-00; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:59:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ceNq-0002QK-00; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:59:18 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ceMb-0005Ay-Sq; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:58:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ceLx-0005Aa-FE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:57:21 -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 AAA17392 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:57:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ceLu-0002Mk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:57:18 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.202.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ceLj-0002Lb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:57:07 -0400 Received: from video.comcast.net (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211](untrusted sender)) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with SMTP id <200307160455520160036ar9e> (Authid: s.schear); Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:55:52 +0000 Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.0.20030715215526.04a83ae0@mail.comcast.net> X-Sender: s.schear@mail.comcast.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Steve Schear In-Reply-To: <27C4E14288DB344FBA10705D57A9BB043E5574@DF-CHOPPER.platinum .corp.microsoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Asrg] The 3rd Annual Nigerian EMail Conference Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 15 Jul 2003 21:57:04 -0700 http://j-walk.com/other/conf/index.htm "There is no protection or safety in anticipatory servility." Craig Spencer _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 16 02:34:43 2003 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 CAA16609 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 02:34:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cfrl-0002sq-NN for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 02:34:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6G6YH95011079 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 02:34:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cfrl-0002sc-D2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 02:34:17 -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 CAA16585; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 02:34:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cfrd-0003VS-00; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 02:34:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cfrX-0003VN-00; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 02:34:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cfqY-0002hB-8p; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 02:33:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cfpz-0002gC-D7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 02:32:27 -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 CAA16463 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 02:32:22 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cfpv-0003Th-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 02:32:23 -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 19cfpk-0003TA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 02:32:12 -0400 Received: (cpmta 16900 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2003 23:30:18 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.65) with SMTP; 15 Jul 2003 23:30:18 -0700 X-Sent: 16 Jul 2003 06:30:18 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Wed, 16 Jul 2003 01:29:06 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 01:58:43 -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] [IP] Link to EU Anti-Spam Legislation Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 16 Jul 2003 01:58:43 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just got this, thought it worth forwarding to our group. <---- Begin Forwarded Message ----> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:32:14 -0400 Subject: [IP] Link to EU Anti-Spam Legislation From: Dave Farber To: ip Reply-To: dave@farber.net ------ Forwarded Message From: "Prof. Jonathan Ezor" Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:00:28 -0400 To: dave@farber.net Subject: Link to EU Anti-Spam Legislation Dave: A number of news sources (including the International Herald Tribune) are reporting on a release from the European Commission regarding its anti-spam directive, 2002/58/EC. As stated in the release, "Member States have to apply and effectively enforce this regime by the 31st of October 2003 at the latest." If anyone would like to see the actual release in English, it may be found at: (Note: TinyURL used to shorten a rather lengthy eu.int citation) with the actual Directive (Article 13 deals with spam) found in PDF format at: (Ditto) I hope this is of interest. {Jonathan} ------------------- Professor Jonathan I. Ezor Director, Institute for Business, Law and Technology (IBLT) Touro Law Center 300 Nassau Road, Huntington, NY 11743 Tel: 631-421-2244 x412 Fax: 516-977-3001 e. jezor@tourolaw.edu BizLawTech Blog: http://iblt.tourolaw.edu/blog RSS: ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ <---- End Forwarded Message ----> 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 Jul 16 04:30:48 2003 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 EAA20923 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:30:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19chfz-0002I5-VB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:30:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6G8UF54008801 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:30:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19chfz-0002HK-2K for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:30:15 -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 EAA20874; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:29:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19chfk-0004di-00; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:30:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19chfe-0004df-00; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:29:54 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19chem-00028Y-RY; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:29:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cheC-00027h-T3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:28:24 -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 EAA20835 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:28:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cheA-0004aW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:28:22 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19chdz-0004aI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:28:11 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19chde-0005JR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:27:50 +0100 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0.General - News Article - NYT Reports Porn Spam Hijacking Network To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.10] 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: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:27:50 +0100 > > So you're proposing that ISPs be required to run something like > SpamAssassin on all *outgoing* e-mail, and bounce e-mail back at the > user if it looks like spam? > This is a real live issue for providers of (for instance) free webmail services. I'm familiar with a situation where the admin overhead of investigating and terminating accounts following abuse allegations is making this kind of outbound filtering look very attractive. I realise that free webmail is a special case, but it's clear that the volume limits imposed by many such providers are a step along this road. > I see a problem with that--will users accept it, or will they take > their money elsewhere? I know that when *I* send an e-mail, I expect it > to be sent--if my ISP bounces it back because they don't like the > content, it's time for me to find another ISP. > Most (if not all) ISP have AUP which prohibit the use of their systems for sending spam. I suspect that if a customer had a lot of trouble with outbound content filtering it would be because either; (a) their ISP does filtering badly - in which case you're right, the customer would walk, or (b) the customer *is* a spammer. I believe that it is in the long-term interests of ISP to keep spammers off their networks. The consequences of blacklisting on legitimate customers can support arguments for outbound filtering. I don't see how you'd "require" ISP to use this, perhaps you might choose to whitelist ISP who assert that they do. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 16 07:33:34 2003 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 HAA26176 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:33:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ckWu-0004AN-LW for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:33:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6GBX4Wd016011 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:33:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ckWu-0004AA-Ii for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:33:04 -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 HAA26165; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:33:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ckWt-0006Ao-00; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:33:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ckWn-0006Al-00; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:32:57 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ckVt-0003wR-PC; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:32:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ckVl-0003vc-7s for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:31:53 -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 HAA26127 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:31:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ckVk-0006A5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:31:52 -0400 Received: from mxsmta01.inithost.com ([209.235.30.103] helo=mxsmta01.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ckVZ-00069F-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:31:41 -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 <20030716113252.FXGZ6624.mxsmta01.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:32:52 -0400 Message-ID: <3F153770.409@garbagedump.com> From: "C. Wegrzyn" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030712 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, af, sq, ar, ar-dz, ar-bh, ar-eg, ar-iq, ar-jo, ar-kw, ar-lb, ar-ly, ar-ma, ar-om, ar-qa, ar-sa, ar-sy, ar-tn, ar-ae, ar-ye, hy, ast, eu, be, bs, bg, ca, zh, zh-cn, zh-hk, zh-sg, zh-tw, hr, cs, da, nl, nl-be, undefined, en-au, en-bz, en-ca, en-ie, en-jm, en-nz, en-ph, en-za, en-tt, en-gb, undefined, en-zw, eo, et, fo, fi, fr, fr-be, fr-ca, fr-fr, fr-lu, fr-mc, fr-ch, gl, ka, de, de-at, de-de, de-li, de-lu, de-ch, el, he, hu, is, id, ga, it, it-ch, ja, ko, ko-kp, ko-kr, lv, lt, mk-mk, ms, no, nb, nn, pl, pt, pt-br, ro, ru, gd, sr, sk, sl, es, es-ar, es-bo, es-cl, es-co, es-cr, es-do, es-ec, es-sv, es-gt, es-hn, es-mx, es-ni, es-pa, es-py, es-pe, es-pr, es-es, es-uy, es-ve, sv, sv-fi, th, tr, uk, vi, cy, xh, yi, zu MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yakov Shafranovich CC: mathew , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0.General - News Article - NYT Reports Porn Spam Hijacking Network References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030715213614.00bd0f00@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030715213614.00bd0f00@solidmatrix.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: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:30:56 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov, Wouldn't the proposal by Mike only work with someone sending to a single site? I am confused as to how my SMTP can be throttled when I spurt emails to a number of MTAs? Is this something an ISP has to implement? Chuck Wegrzyn Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > At 06:07 PM 7/15/2003 -0400, mathew wrote: > >> On Tuesday, July 15, 2003, at 08:47 AM, Alan DeKok wrote: >> >>> mathew wrote: >> >> .... >> >>> Spam filtering on outbound messages is perfectly permissible in many >>> cases, and legally required in many. Do you really think that it's >>> legally acceptable for businesses to allow their employees to send >>> (whatever illegal content) to each other, or to people outside of the >>> company? >> >> >> So you're proposing that ISPs be required to run something like >> SpamAssassin on all *outgoing* e-mail, and bounce e-mail back at the >> user if it looks like spam? >> >> I see a problem with that--will users accept it, or will they take >> their money elsewhere? I know that when *I* send an e-mail, I expect >> it to be sent--if my ISP bounces it back because they don't like the >> content, it's time for me to find another ISP. > > > Sometime back Mike Rubel proposed implementing a rate limit on > outgoing messages (see > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg04616.html). > If too many messages are sent within a set amount of time, they are > held in queue and a message is sent to the ISP subscriber warning him > about a possible infection. Same can apply to too many outgoing spam > messages (see > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg04629.html). > A sample warning would be as follows: > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Dear customer, > > We apologize for this intrusion. > > Our systems indicate that your computer attempted to send a large > number of emails over the last ten minutes. Because unusually > large volumes of outbound email sometimes indicate the presence of > a computer virus, we wanted to check with you before proceeding. > These and further emails will be placed in a temporary > quarantine while we await your instructions. We respect your > privacy, and will not read or otherwise disclose the messages > without your permission. > > Please call (800) 123-4567 at your earliest convenience so that > we may process your request without further delay. We appreciate > your business and look forward to serving you again in the future. > > --Your friendly email service providers > To change your notification settings, please go to: > https://www.exampleisp.com/my_account_settings/web_form.php > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 16 07:34:16 2003 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 HAA26222 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:34:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ckXc-0004KL-W7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:33:49 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6GBXmxJ016634 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:33:48 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ckXc-0004KD-Se for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:33:48 -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 HAA26197; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:33:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ckXc-0006B3-00; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:33:48 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ckXV-0006B0-00; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:33:41 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ckWr-00046t-E8; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:33:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ckW1-0003yL-U3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:32:09 -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 HAA26134 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:32:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ckW1-0006AB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:32:09 -0400 Received: from mxsmta02.inithost.com ([209.235.30.104] helo=mxsmta02.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ckVq-00069T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:31:58 -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 <20030716112902.JJXJ7659.mxsmta02.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:29:02 -0400 Message-ID: <3F153782.4050507@garbagedump.com> From: "C. Wegrzyn" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030712 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, af, sq, ar, ar-dz, ar-bh, ar-eg, ar-iq, ar-jo, ar-kw, ar-lb, ar-ly, ar-ma, ar-om, ar-qa, ar-sa, ar-sy, ar-tn, ar-ae, ar-ye, hy, ast, eu, be, bs, bg, ca, zh, zh-cn, zh-hk, zh-sg, zh-tw, hr, cs, da, nl, nl-be, undefined, en-au, en-bz, en-ca, en-ie, en-jm, en-nz, en-ph, en-za, en-tt, en-gb, undefined, en-zw, eo, et, fo, fi, fr, fr-be, fr-ca, fr-fr, fr-lu, fr-mc, fr-ch, gl, ka, de, de-at, de-de, de-li, de-lu, de-ch, el, he, hu, is, id, ga, it, it-ch, ja, ko, ko-kp, ko-kr, lv, lt, mk-mk, ms, no, nb, nn, pl, pt, pt-br, ro, ru, gd, sr, sk, sl, es, es-ar, es-bo, es-cl, es-co, es-cr, es-do, es-ec, es-sv, es-gt, es-hn, es-mx, es-ni, es-pa, es-py, es-pe, es-pr, es-es, es-uy, es-ve, sv, sv-fi, th, tr, uk, vi, cy, xh, yi, zu MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yakov Shafranovich CC: mathew , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0.General - News Article - NYT Reports Porn Spam Hijacking Network References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030715213614.00bd0f00@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030715213614.00bd0f00@solidmatrix.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: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:31:14 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov, Wouldn't the proposal by Mike only work with someone sending to a single site? I am confused as to how my MAT can be throttled when I spurt emails to a number of different MTAs? Is this something an ISP has to implement? Chuck Wegrzyn Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > At 06:07 PM 7/15/2003 -0400, mathew wrote: > >> On Tuesday, July 15, 2003, at 08:47 AM, Alan DeKok wrote: >> >>> mathew wrote: >> >> .... >> >>> Spam filtering on outbound messages is perfectly permissible in many >>> cases, and legally required in many. Do you really think that it's >>> legally acceptable for businesses to allow their employees to send >>> (whatever illegal content) to each other, or to people outside of the >>> company? >> >> >> So you're proposing that ISPs be required to run something like >> SpamAssassin on all *outgoing* e-mail, and bounce e-mail back at the >> user if it looks like spam? >> >> I see a problem with that--will users accept it, or will they take >> their money elsewhere? I know that when *I* send an e-mail, I expect >> it to be sent--if my ISP bounces it back because they don't like the >> content, it's time for me to find another ISP. > > > Sometime back Mike Rubel proposed implementing a rate limit on > outgoing messages (see > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg04616.html). > If too many messages are sent within a set amount of time, they are > held in queue and a message is sent to the ISP subscriber warning him > about a possible infection. Same can apply to too many outgoing spam > messages (see > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg04629.html). > A sample warning would be as follows: > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Dear customer, > > We apologize for this intrusion. > > Our systems indicate that your computer attempted to send a large > number of emails over the last ten minutes. Because unusually > large volumes of outbound email sometimes indicate the presence of > a computer virus, we wanted to check with you before proceeding. > These and further emails will be placed in a temporary > quarantine while we await your instructions. We respect your > privacy, and will not read or otherwise disclose the messages > without your permission. > > Please call (800) 123-4567 at your earliest convenience so that > we may process your request without further delay. We appreciate > your business and look forward to serving you again in the future. > > --Your friendly email service providers > To change your notification settings, please go to: > https://www.exampleisp.com/my_account_settings/web_form.php > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 16 07:34:17 2003 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 HAA26237 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:34:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ckXe-0004Kk-Ac for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:33:50 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6GBXoYM016653 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:33:50 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ckXc-0004KC-Qr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:33:48 -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 HAA26194; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:33:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ckXb-0006B7-00; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:33:47 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ckXV-0006B4-00; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:33:41 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ckWs-00049l-33; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:33:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ckWj-00045H-7E for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:32:53 -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 HAA26161 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:32:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ckWi-0006Ag-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:32:52 -0400 Received: from mxsmta01.inithost.com ([209.235.30.103] helo=mxsmta01.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ckWX-0006Ac-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:32:41 -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 <20030716113436.FXSL6624.mxsmta01.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:34:36 -0400 Message-ID: <3F1537D8.9080607@garbagedump.com> From: "C. Wegrzyn" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030712 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, af, sq, ar, ar-dz, ar-bh, ar-eg, ar-iq, ar-jo, ar-kw, ar-lb, ar-ly, ar-ma, ar-om, ar-qa, ar-sa, ar-sy, ar-tn, ar-ae, ar-ye, hy, ast, eu, be, bs, bg, ca, zh, zh-cn, zh-hk, zh-sg, zh-tw, hr, cs, da, nl, nl-be, undefined, en-au, en-bz, en-ca, en-ie, en-jm, en-nz, en-ph, en-za, en-tt, en-gb, undefined, en-zw, eo, et, fo, fi, fr, fr-be, fr-ca, fr-fr, fr-lu, fr-mc, fr-ch, gl, ka, de, de-at, de-de, de-li, de-lu, de-ch, el, he, hu, is, id, ga, it, it-ch, ja, ko, ko-kp, ko-kr, lv, lt, mk-mk, ms, no, nb, nn, pl, pt, pt-br, ro, ru, gd, sr, sk, sl, es, es-ar, es-bo, es-cl, es-co, es-cr, es-do, es-ec, es-sv, es-gt, es-hn, es-mx, es-ni, es-pa, es-py, es-pe, es-pr, es-es, es-uy, es-ve, sv, sv-fi, th, tr, uk, vi, cy, xh, yi, zu MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gep2@terabites.com CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] [IP] Link to EU Anti-Spam Legislation 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: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:32:40 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The problem with all this legislation is that it has to be applied globally. Just because the EU or even the U.S. outlaws it doesn't mean it won't still happen. All you need to do is go off-shore to spam! Chuck Wegrzyn gep2@terabites.com wrote: >Just got this, thought it worth forwarding to our group. > ><---- Begin Forwarded Message ----> >Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:32:14 -0400 >Subject: [IP] Link to EU Anti-Spam Legislation >From: Dave Farber >To: ip >Reply-To: dave@farber.net > > >------ Forwarded Message >From: "Prof. Jonathan Ezor" >Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:00:28 -0400 >To: dave@farber.net >Subject: Link to EU Anti-Spam Legislation > >Dave: > >A number of news sources (including the International Herald Tribune) are >reporting on a release from the European Commission regarding its anti-spam >directive, 2002/58/EC. As stated in the release, "Member States have to >apply and effectively enforce this regime by the 31st of October 2003 at the >latest." > >If anyone would like to see the actual release in English, it may be found >at: > > (Note: TinyURL used to shorten a rather lengthy >eu.int citation) > >with the actual Directive (Article 13 deals with spam) found in PDF format >at: > > (Ditto) > >I hope this is of interest. {Jonathan} > >------------------- >Professor Jonathan I. Ezor >Director, Institute for Business, Law and Technology (IBLT) >Touro Law Center >300 Nassau Road, Huntington, NY 11743 >Tel: 631-421-2244 x412 Fax: 516-977-3001 >e. jezor@tourolaw.edu >BizLawTech Blog: http://iblt.tourolaw.edu/blog >RSS: > > >------ End of Forwarded Message > >------------------------------------- >Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ > > ><---- End Forwarded Message ----> > >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 Wed Jul 16 10:29:41 2003 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 KAA03241 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:29:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cnHQ-0006EF-7c for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:29:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6GETGwa023939 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:29:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cnHQ-0006E1-27 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:29:16 -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 KAA03207; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:29:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cnHN-0007gv-00; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:29:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cnHH-0007gs-00; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:29:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cnHB-0006C1-Fe; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:29:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cnGb-0006A8-B4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:28:25 -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 KAA03180 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:28:19 -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 19cnEh-0003Fa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:26:27 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0.General - News Article - NYT Reports Porn Spam Hijacking Network In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:07:50 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: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:26:27 -0400 mathew wrote: > Filter how, though? How are you going to distinguish between e-mail > generated by the computer's owner and sent by his e-mail software, and > e-mail generated by malware and sent by the computer's owner's e-mail > software? There are a number of methods. Volume is one. Content filtering is another. i.e. If the recipient can decide a message may be spam based on content filters, why the heck can't the senders ISP make the same decision? Why can't ISP's run simple QoS style limiters on outbound email? For each message that looks like real email, bandwidth goes up, and delay goes down. For each message that looks like spam, bandwidth goes down, and delay goes up. At no point will any email be blocked. And the delays will usually be done on time scales that are unnoticable to people. There are MANY ways of dealing with suspicious traffic at the source. Dropping the traffic whole-sale is just one of them. Cost considerations aside (no one makes money off of email, etc..), I don't understand why it's considered acceptable Netiquette to send gigabytes of garbage onto the net, knowing full well that most of it will be thrown away at the other end. It's ridiculous. > So you're proposing that ISPs be required to run something like > SpamAssassin on all *outgoing* e-mail, and bounce e-mail back at the > user if it looks like spam? That's *exactly* what I refused to say. I'm saying that the ISP's MAY CHOOSE to be polite to the rest of the net, and (shockingly) may want to be aware of what's going on in their internal network. > I see a problem with that--will users accept it, or will they take > their money elsewhere? I know that when *I* send an e-mail, I expect it > to be sent--if my ISP bounces it back because they don't like the > content, it's time for me to find another ISP. If you're a spammer, it's perfectly reasonable for you to get kicked off of an ISP (at their choice or yours), because allowing you to spam usually costs them MUCH more money than they get from you. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 16 13:11:44 2003 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 NAA08817 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:11:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cpoG-0007qP-0M for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:11:20 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6GHBJlO030149 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:11:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cpoF-0007qC-SU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:11:19 -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 NAA08801; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:11:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cpoD-0001Gf-00; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:11:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cpo8-0001Gc-00; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:11:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cpny-0007iA-Dl; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:11:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cpnc-0007hn-RG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:10:40 -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 NAA08776 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:10:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cpna-0001GV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:10:39 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cpnQ-0001G2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:10:28 -0400 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2003071617084001200agrt9e>; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:08:40 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (toshiba.fda.zemos.net [10.0.0.108]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC87757AB for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 14:13:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F158688.603@zemos.net> From: Philip Miller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0.General - News Article - NYT Reports Porn Spam Hijacking Network References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030715213614.00bd0f00@solidmatrix.com> <3F153770.409@garbagedump.com> In-Reply-To: <3F153770.409@garbagedump.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, 16 Jul 2003 13:08:24 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit C. Wegrzyn wrote: > Wouldn't the proposal by Mike only work with someone sending to a > single site? I am confused as to how my SMTP can be throttled when I > spurt emails to a number of MTAs? Is this something an ISP has to > implement? The assumption is that most users send mail through their ISP's MTA[s]. For users who run their own SMTP servers, clearly this would require much greater resources to implement, along with deceiving the user's SMTP server into thinking that mail has reached its destination host. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 16 13:57:41 2003 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 NAA10472 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:57:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cqWg-00027J-P9 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:57:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6GHvEZl008131 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:57:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cqWg-000274-LF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:57:14 -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 NAA10457; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:57:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cqWe-0001g5-00; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:57:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cqWY-0001g2-00; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:57:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cqWT-00021v-RY; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:57:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cqW3-00021T-NR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:56:35 -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 NAA10447 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:56:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cqW1-0001fs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:56:33 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cqVq-0001fc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:56:22 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:54:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:43:02 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Paul Judge , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 0. ASRG Website updated 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: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:42:54 -0400 > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > > Would user education go under 7. Best Practices documents? > What about in > addition to promulgating a set of BCPs, setting up an active > organization > promoting the adoption of BCPs like the Web Standards Project? I think that 7.a. BCP for End-users is 'user education'. It is at least the creation of the material for educating users. I suppose the second part of user education is distributing that information. Once we create it and make it available, I do not know if we need a separate grassroots coalition to promote it. There are a number of organizations that participate in anti-spam efforts ranging from CAUCE to SpamCon to the FTC to the Center for Democracy and Technology. Beyond the participants here and these organizations, it is not clear what such a new organization would do. Can you help clarify? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 16 16:30:08 2003 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 QAA16260 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:30:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19csuD-0003XR-Vs for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:29:42 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6GKTfHu013597 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:29:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19csuD-0003XE-Sv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:29:41 -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 QAA16242; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:29:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cstZ-0003PH-0X; Wed, 16 Jul 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 19cstD-0003Ov-F4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:28:39 -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 QAA16177 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:28:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cstB-0002se-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:28:37 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr8.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cst0-0002s2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:28:27 -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 ANY05140; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:27:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-83-238-146.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.83.238.146]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AKW72609; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:27:20 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list Message-ID: <002c01c34bd8$a9e4d030$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <000b01c32fbc$b4e8f930$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> Importance: Normal 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: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:27:22 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On July 8 2003, yet another spam-related patent was issued in the US: This system describes yet another method of generating and using "single user" email addresses. US Patent 6,591,291 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=3D6574658 System and method for providing anonymous remailing and filtering of electronic mail=20 A system for, and method of, generating an alias source address for an electronic mail ("e-mail") message having a real source address and a destination address and a computer network, such as the Internet, including the system or the method. In one embodiment, the system includes an alias source address generator that employs the destination address to generate the alias source address. The system further includes an alias source address substitutor that substitutes the alias source address for the real source address. This removes the real source address from the e-mail message and thereby renders the sender, located at the real source address, anonymous. Further-described are systems and methods for forwarding reply e-mail and filtering reply e-mail based on alias source address.=20 Inventors: Gabber; Eran (Summit, NJ); Gibbons; Phillip B. (Westfield, NJ); Kristol; David Morris (Summit, NJ); Matias; Yossi (Potomac, MD); Mayer; Alain J. (New York, NY)=20 Assignee: Lucent Technologies Inc. (Murray Hill, NJ) Filed: March 12, 1998 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 16 17:34:49 2003 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 RAA18602 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:34:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ctup-0007CV-IW for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:34:24 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6GLYNb0027675 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:34:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ctup-0007CI-FT for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:34:23 -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 RAA18598; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:34:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ctun-0003ky-00; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:34:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ctuh-0003kv-00; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:34:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ctuT-00076C-4o; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:34:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ctu3-00075t-AL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:33:35 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-02.rdc-kc.rr.com (ms-smtp-02.rdc-kc.rr.com [24.94.166.122]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA18567 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:33:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CPE-65-26-14-51.kc.rr.com (CPE-65-26-14-51.kc.rr.com [65.26.14.51]) by ms-smtp-02.rdc-kc.rr.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h6GLXOPZ014293; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:33:25 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RAPNAP/OMX Re: 6. Proposal - Sender Pays (was RE: [Asrg] Forbes: Pay up ) From: david nicol To: Paul Judge Cc: "'mathew'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1058391203.1096.78.camel@plaza.davidnicol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine 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: 16 Jul 2003 16:33:24 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello ASRG mailing list I've been working on this for several years and the implementation is going through beta testing. Sign up at http://www.pay2send.com/newalias.html to have a working @pay2send.com forwarding address. Filtering will start happen Real Soon Now. (like before dawn tomorrow.) All signed-up recipients will receive announcements. Sender identity (an important aspect of Sender Pays) is keyed on RAPNAP (Return Address, Network Address Pair) rather than simply RA or insisting on public keys. (A public-key based sender verification would be easy to add, but the minimal Release 1 uses RAPNAP.) RAPNAP is verified using the RAPNAP database, a centralized C-R system. A client for the pay2send RAPNAP database is available on CPAN. In addition to RAPNAP, to avoid C-R handshakes for users of OMX compliant e-mail systems, the rapnap check system checks for the existence of omx.example.com when it is analyzing mail with an example.com RA. When omx.example.com exists and the PNA is listed as one of (the first seven) A-records, the message is assumed to be legitimate. When there are seven or more records in omx.example.com, the system checks d.c.b.a.omx.example.com for any a.b.c.d PNA, and if it exists and is not 0.0.0.0, the C-R handshake is avoided. The OMX proposal has been discussed on the DJBDNS mailing list; this message is the first mention of it in an IETF forum. Ideally, the RAPNAP database will be DNS based and live at username.at.example.com.via.d.c.b.a.rapnap.int and, to provide some data to include in the CR messages sl.subject.line.ta.target.address.ra.username.at.example.com.via.d.c.b.a.rapnap.int but we might run into A record length limitations; or truncate accordingly. and mailinglistid.via.d.c.b.a.rapnap.int instead of being a clunky web service. David Nicol see also http://www.pay2send.com/sender_identity.txt Looks like I never set up a pay2send discussion mailing list -- I will be happy to maintain a simple developer's mailing list for people who wish to contribute their sweat to the pay2send project: e-mail me personally including links to your resume and how much time you have to put in. THE PAY2SEND PROJECT IS A PROFIT-MOTIVATED COMMERCIAL PROJECT AND I AM TRACKING EQUITY CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS LATER REIMBURSEMENT. On Tue, 2003-07-15 at 08:56, Paul Judge wrote: > Mathew, it sounds like you are volunteering to lead some work into the > "sender pays" approach. Good. Do you have any preliminary ideas? Is what > you're thinking along the lines of Selling Interrupt Rights or SHRED or is > it a different approach? > > IBM's Selling Interrupt Rights: > http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/414/forum.pdf > > Balachander Krishamurthy's SHRED: > http://www.research.att.com/~bala/papers/shred-ietf56-talk.pdf > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: mathew [mailto:meta@pobox.com] > > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 11:06 PM > > To: asrg@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Forbes: Pay up > > > > It seems to me that those of us who think "sender pays" is necessary > > could usefully set up a separate list to come up with > > requirements, and > > a proposed implementation model, which could then be brought > > back here > > for the inevitable nit-picking. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg -- David Nicol, independent consultant, contractor, and food service worker Imagine the first ice cream in Calcutta: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/078686740X/tipjartransactioA/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 16 17:48:34 2003 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 RAA18876 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:48:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cu8A-000838-2m for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:48:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6GLmAMO030936 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:48:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cu89-00082t-Ud for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:48:09 -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 RAA18863; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:48:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cu87-0003rL-00; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:48:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cu81-0003rI-00; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:48:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cu81-0007wZ-4w; Wed, 16 Jul 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 19cu7W-0007w6-Rj for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:47:30 -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 RAA18856 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:47:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cu7U-0003r3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:47:28 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-01.rdc-kc.rr.com ([24.94.166.115]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cu7J-0003qq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:47:17 -0400 Received: from CPE-65-26-14-51.kc.rr.com (CPE-65-26-14-51.kc.rr.com [65.26.14.51]) by ms-smtp-01.rdc-kc.rr.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h6GLkQKd029800; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:46:28 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list From: david nicol To: bob@wyman.us Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <002c01c34bd8$a9e4d030$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> References: <002c01c34bd8$a9e4d030$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1058391985.11633.89.camel@plaza.davidnicol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine 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: 16 Jul 2003 16:46:25 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit why isn't anon.penet.fi prior art? On Wed, 2003-07-16 at 15:27, Bob Wyman wrote: > On July 8 2003, yet another spam-related patent was issued in the US: > This system describes yet another method of generating and using "single > user" email addresses. > > US Patent 6,591,291 > http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6574658 -- David Nicol, independent consultant, contractor, and food service worker Imagine the first ice cream in Calcutta: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/078686740X/tipjartransactioA/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 16 18:42:51 2003 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 SAA21737 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:42:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cuyh-0003Hp-K1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:42:27 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6GMgRrY012627 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:42:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cuyh-0003Ha-GX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:42:27 -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 SAA21726; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:42:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cuye-0004Hk-00; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:42:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cuyY-0004Hh-00; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:42:18 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cuyG-0003D6-Au; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:42:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cuxp-00038v-HZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:41:33 -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 SAA21664 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:41:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cuxm-0004GO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:41:30 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr9.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cuxb-0004Ft-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:41:19 -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 PHX23999; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:40:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-83-238-146.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.83.238.146]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AKW96747; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:40:47 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'david nicol'" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list Message-ID: <003601c34beb$4ebec9f0$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: <1058391985.11633.89.camel@plaza.davidnicol.com> Importance: Normal 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: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:40:50 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable David Nicol wrote: >why isn't anon.penet.fi prior art? RTFM... Anon.penet.fi is explicitly discussed in the patent. The distinction would appear to be that this patent relies on computation to generate the "alias" addresses while other systems have traditionaly relied on translation tables stored in databases. In fact, the well known case of anon.penet.fi being forced to disclose one of their translations to the police is cited as a problem with existing art that this invention attempts to fix. For those not familiar with long closed anon.penet.fi site, I suggest that you read:=20 http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1997/sep/helmers.html Personally, I think a much better question on prior art is why the patent examiner didn't consider US Patent 6,356,935 and several other similar systems to be relevant to this application. I think the examiners may have been too focused on "anonymity" in the process of examination while not realizing that there were a number of other problem spaces which can be addressed with substantially the same method. The solutions to both the "anonymity" problem and the "spam" problem involve constructing "alias" addresses which are based on "real" addresses. The methods are identical even though the reason for deploying them and the words used to describe them are different. The problem here is that in software, the distinction between what appear to be distinct methods is often simply the way you think about the methods -- not anything inherent to the method itself. Thus, a single method can be described multiple times with completely distinct vocabulary. This sort of problem is not as common in the realm of "traditional" patents. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 16 20:18:41 2003 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 UAA23476 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:18:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cwTO-0008MH-Tp for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:18:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6H0IEmZ032123 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:18:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cwTO-0008M1-Pc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:18:14 -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 UAA23470; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:18:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cwTM-000514-00; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:18:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cwTH-000511-00; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:18:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19cwTB-0008Jt-A0; Wed, 16 Jul 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 19cwSK-0008J9-36 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:17:08 -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 UAA23444 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:17:04 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19cwSI-00050S-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:17:06 -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 19cwS7-0004zO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:16:55 -0400 Received: (cpmta 5607 invoked from network); 16 Jul 2003 17:14:53 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.71) with SMTP; 16 Jul 2003 17:14:53 -0700 X-Sent: 17 Jul 2003 00:14:53 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:14:24 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:44:03 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 1. Problem Inventory - Core solutions 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: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:44:03 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > As mentioned by Barry before, one type of solutions for spam are attacking the problem at the "core" level of the network - seeking ways to detect spam behavior including hijacked computers and stopping them. While I agree that would be nice, I don't think it makes sense to wait until then. I believe that the best way to get solutions implemented NOW are to have them repay AT ONCE the effort spent putting them in place... and that means edge solutions that primarily benefit the person(s) installing them. That, to me, looks like my recipient-end permissions list system. As for the "here's how to make cheap calls" E-mail that supposedly would make it through content filters, I'll comment that it would only make it through my filter ONCE... since I generally add spam-shilled domains to my domain blacklist "hosts" file, and I'll then not see that domain in a spam email ever again. One thing which I haven't yet done in my personal system is to implement a good way of handling subdomains, especially arbitrary subdomains, but it turns out it won't be particularly hard for me to do that. > 3. If this type of solutions are considered more of a "long term", should we be considering "edge" solutions for the short and medium term? I think we *absolutely* need to find quicker, "edge"-type solutions. The idea of by default filtering out HTML-burdened mail is, I think, key to denying the most common and pernicious spammer tricks... and nearly all of the things which make life the most difficult for content scanners. 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 Jul 17 01:31:18 2003 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 BAA02813 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 01:31:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19d1Lv-00070q-A8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 01:30:51 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6H5Up2q026952 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 01:30:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19d1Lv-00070d-3E for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 01:30:51 -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 BAA02789; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 01:30:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19d1Lr-0000oU-00; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 01:30:48 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19d1Lm-0000oF-00; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 01:30:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19d1L7-0006wT-BI; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 01:30:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19d1KE-0006vt-8J for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 01:29:06 -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 BAA02736 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 01:29:01 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19d1K9-0000lN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 01:29:01 -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 19d1Jy-0000kw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 01:28:50 -0400 Received: (cpmta 28491 invoked from network); 16 Jul 2003 22:28:10 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.66) with SMTP; 16 Jul 2003 22:28:10 -0700 X-Sent: 17 Jul 2003 05:28:10 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:26:38 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:56:18 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Must Address Issue of Hijacked Computers 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, 17 Jul 2003 00:56:18 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Should the following be part of the requirements: > "Proposals must address issues of hijacked computers used for sending spam." One of the advantages of my Permissions List approach (coupled with a subsequent content filter like SpamAssassin or similar) is that it doesn't really much matter whether a computer is hijacked or not for sending spams (at least not as far as the recipient protected by my approach). If the spam sender forges somebody else's address as the sender, then they are going to be limited (by default at least) to sending plain ASCII text and it will have to go through the content filters which will put a hold on any of the familiar spam stuff. If they forge the address of the normal user of the machine they've hijacked, then they still can't send anything more elaborate or potentially deceptive/destructive than plain ASCII text unless that user has already got a trust relationship with the appropriate recipients. Note for this point that almost nobody will have permission to (for example) send executable-type attachments, and only a few will be allowed to send HTML-burdened messages at all. Therefore, although a hijacked computer could still send stuff out (and I don't know that there's likely to be very much short of maybe a "circuit-breaker" or throttling type of thing that can do much to limit that... and I'm not sure how that would work if they don't use any independent (ISP-based for instance) sender-end mail server...) but at least if the recipients have suitable permissions list and content filtering software installed, they should be able to deal with the spam just about as well as they could if it came from other non-hijacked sources. Remember, the spammers send E-mail because it gets enough results to justify the (low) cost of sending it. If enough of their stuff never gets opened or read (by a human, at least) then they get back essentially nothing. At some point, spamming simply isn't profitable anymore... and at that point, much of it is going to disappear. 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 Jul 17 13:39:43 2003 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 NAA14787 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:39:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dCiq-00073c-TN for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:39:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6HHdGT7027127 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:39:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dCiq-00073S-PF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:39:16 -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 NAA14754; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:39:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dCio-0000AX-00; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:39:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dCii-0000AR-00; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:39:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dChd-0006qK-L4; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:38:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dCh3-0006h1-AE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:37:25 -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 NAA14722 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:37:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dCh1-00009e-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:37:23 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr7.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dCgq-00009O-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:37:12 -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 OYK04156; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:36:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-83-238-146.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.83.238.146]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AKY40006; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Must Address Issue of Hijacked Computers Message-ID: <002b01c34c89$fe83b1e0$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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030713122535.00ba27a8@pop.pocketmail.com> 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, 17 Jul 2003 13:36:45 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Should the following be part of the requirements: > "Proposals must address issues of hijacked=20 > computers used for sending spam." No. This should not be a requirement for *all* proposals since not all proposals rely on any particular knowledge of source server. On the other hand, proposals which rely on knowledge of source servers *should* address the issue of hijacked machines. Undoubtedly, one of the objectives of research should be to determine what, if any, unique problems are introduced by the use of hijacked machines. However, the understanding that results from this research will only be applicable to a subset of all of the various mechanisms that may contribute to a reduction of spam. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 17 15:03:02 2003 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 PAA17938 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:03:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dE1U-0002yL-7Y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:02:36 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6HJ2ase011419 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:02:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dE1U-0002y6-4V for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:02:36 -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 PAA17930; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:02:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dE1R-0000kj-00; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:02:33 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dE1L-0000kg-00; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:02:27 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dE0v-0002sv-K5; Thu, 17 Jul 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 19dE0k-0002sh-Da for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:01:50 -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 PAA17915 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:01:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dE0h-0000kH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:01:47 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dE0W-0000k7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:01:36 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:00:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:47:36 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'bob@wyman.us'" , "'david nicol'" Cc: "'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 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 17 Jul 2003 14:47:31 -0400 We do encourage the disclosure of any known intellectual property rights in accordance with the ASRG's interim IPR policy. However, we also discussed on the list a while ago that this is not the appropriate forum to debate the validity of any IPR claims. > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Wyman [mailto:bob@wyman.us] > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 6:41 PM > To: 'david nicol' > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list > > > David Nicol wrote: > >why isn't anon.penet.fi prior art? > RTFM... Anon.penet.fi is explicitly discussed in the > patent. The distinction would appear to be that this patent > relies on computation to generate the "alias" addresses while > other systems have traditionaly relied on translation tables > stored in databases. In fact, the well known case of > anon.penet.fi being forced to disclose one of their > translations to the police is cited as a problem with > existing art that this invention attempts to fix. > For those not familiar with long closed anon.penet.fi > site, I suggest that you read: > http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1997/sep/helmers.html > > Personally, I think a much better question on prior art > is why the patent examiner didn't consider US Patent > 6,356,935 and several other similar systems to be relevant to > this application. I think the examiners may have been too > focused on "anonymity" in the process of examination while > not realizing that there were a number of other problem > spaces which can be addressed with substantially the same > method. The solutions to both the "anonymity" problem and the > "spam" problem involve constructing "alias" addresses which > are based on "real" addresses. The methods are identical even > though the reason for deploying them and the words used to > describe them are different. > The problem here is that in software, the distinction > between what appear to be distinct methods is often simply > the way you think about the methods -- not anything inherent > to the method itself. Thus, a single method can be described > multiple times with completely distinct vocabulary. This sort > of problem is not as common in the realm of "traditional" patents. > > bob wyman > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 17 15:35:38 2003 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 PAA19948 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:35:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dEX1-0004T5-T8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:35:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6HJZB7G017174 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:35:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dEX1-0004Sv-Q6 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:35:11 -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 PAA19937; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:35:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dEX0-0000uS-00; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:35:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dEWu-0000uP-00; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:35:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dEWr-0004Pn-A0; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:35:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dEWh-0004NH-9j for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:34:51 -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 PAA19931 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:34:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dEWg-0000uB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:34:50 -0400 Received: from 000-237-124.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.165.143] helo=68.27.165.143 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dEWS-0000ty-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:34:37 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030717153336.00b5cf48@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: david nicol From: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Subject: [Asrg] Re: RAPNAP/OMX Re: 6. Proposal - Sender Pays (was RE: [Asrg] Forbes: Pay up ) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 17 Jul 2003 15:33:38 -0400 After looking at your website, I came across a provisional patent application (http://www.pay2send.com/Provisional_Patent_Application_Filed_15_Dec_2002.pdf). Please take a look at the ASRG's interim IPR policy (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_ipr_policy.htm), in particular: "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." IPR disclosures to the ASRG can be found at (http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html). Yakov At 04:33 PM 7/16/2003 -0500, david nicol wrote: >Hello ASRG mailing list > >I've been working on this for several years and the implementation >is going through beta testing. > >Sign up at http://www.pay2send.com/newalias.html to have >a working @pay2send.com forwarding address. Filtering will >start happen Real Soon Now. (like before dawn tomorrow.) > >All signed-up recipients will receive announcements. > >Sender identity (an important aspect of Sender Pays) is >keyed on RAPNAP (Return Address, Network Address Pair) rather >than simply RA or insisting on public keys. (A public-key based >sender verification would be easy to add, but the minimal Release 1 >uses RAPNAP.) > >RAPNAP is verified using the RAPNAP database, a centralized C-R system. > >A client for the pay2send RAPNAP database is available on CPAN. > >In addition to RAPNAP, to avoid C-R handshakes for users of >OMX compliant e-mail systems, the rapnap check system checks >for the existence of omx.example.com when it is analyzing mail >with an example.com RA. When omx.example.com exists and the >PNA is listed as one of (the first seven) A-records, the message >is assumed to be legitimate. > >When there are seven or more records in omx.example.com, the >system checks d.c.b.a.omx.example.com for any a.b.c.d PNA, >and if it exists and is not 0.0.0.0, the C-R handshake is >avoided. > >The OMX proposal has been discussed on the DJBDNS mailing list; >this message is the first mention of it in an IETF forum. > > >Ideally, the RAPNAP database will be DNS based and live >at > > username.at.example.com.via.d.c.b.a.rapnap.int > >and, to provide some data to include in the CR messages > > >sl.subject.line.ta.target.address.ra.username.at.example.com.via.d.c.b.a.rapnap.int > >but we might run into A record length limitations; or truncate >accordingly. > >and > mailinglistid.via.d.c.b.a.rapnap.int > >instead of being a clunky web service. > > >David Nicol > >see also > >http://www.pay2send.com/sender_identity.txt > >Looks like I never set up a pay2send discussion mailing list -- >I will be happy to maintain a simple developer's mailing list >for people who wish to contribute their sweat to the pay2send project: >e-mail me personally including links to your resume and how much >time you have to put in. >THE PAY2SEND PROJECT IS A PROFIT-MOTIVATED COMMERCIAL PROJECT >AND I AM TRACKING EQUITY CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS LATER REIMBURSEMENT. > > > > >On Tue, 2003-07-15 at 08:56, Paul Judge wrote: > > Mathew, it sounds like you are volunteering to lead some work into the > > "sender pays" approach. Good. Do you have any preliminary ideas? Is what > > you're thinking along the lines of Selling Interrupt Rights or SHRED or is > > it a different approach? > > > > IBM's Selling Interrupt Rights: > > http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/414/forum.pdf > > > > Balachander Krishamurthy's SHRED: > > http://www.research.att.com/~bala/papers/shred-ietf56-talk.pdf > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: mathew [mailto:meta@pobox.com] > > > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 11:06 PM > > > To: asrg@ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Forbes: Pay up > > > > > > It seems to me that those of us who think "sender pays" is necessary > > > could usefully set up a separate list to come up with > > > requirements, and > > > a proposed implementation model, which could then be brought > > > back here > > > for the inevitable nit-picking. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg >-- >David Nicol, independent consultant, contractor, and food service worker >Imagine the first ice cream in Calcutta: >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/078686740X/tipjartransactioA/ > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jul 18 10:41:25 2003 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 KAA02945 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:41:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dWPp-0001Af-Ke for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:40:57 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6IEeveN004500 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:40:57 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dWPp-0001AV-Gx for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:40:57 -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 KAA02929; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:40:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dWPn-0001Od-00; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:40:55 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dWPh-0001OZ-00; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:40:49 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dWOv-00016s-6L; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:40:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dWNz-00015w-Bv for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:39:07 -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 KAA02751 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:38:59 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dWNx-0001NX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:39:01 -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 19dWNm-0001NP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:38:50 -0400 Received: (cpmta 4572 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2003 07:38:17 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.64) with SMTP; 18 Jul 2003 07:38:17 -0700 X-Sent: 18 Jul 2003 14:38:17 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 09:38:16 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:08:01 -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] 0. General - News Article - [IP] President Bush using challenge-response for his 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: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:08:01 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is interesting on several levels.... one of them being that as a test I just sent an E-mail to president@whitehouse.gov and didn't receive a reply suggesting that I had to visit the purported Web site in order for the E-mail to be delivered. (The actual automatically generated E-mail I *did* get back follows). Do you suppose they abandoned their new C/R system, already, due to the widespread objections it apparently received? Another observation is that clearly the White House is plagued by spam, too... And yet another is their apparent desire to automatically send the "right" formletter response, without needing to actually read incoming e-mails, not even by low-level clerical grunts. <---- Begin Forwarded Message ----> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 04:51:54 -0400 Subject: [IP] President Bush using challenge-response for his email From: Dave Farber To: ip Reply-To: dave@farber.net ------ Forwarded Message From: Mike Masnick Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 01:15:33 -0700 To: declan@well.com, dave@farber.net Subject: President Bush using challenge-response for his email Declan, Dave, Just read this article: http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/6330165.htm about how the Whitehouse has now made it more difficult to email the President. Since the two of you are interested in both tech and political issues, I thought you'd be interested in the story just from the angle of "now the Whitehouse is making it even more difficult to be heard". However, I think, the more interesting point is one I discuss here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030718/018227_F.shtml President Bush has really started using "challenge-response" technology to get rid of spam (and to better sort emails). It works exactly like the basic challenge response systems: (a) you email the President (b) instead of getting the email, you receive a reply telling you to go to a webpage (c) at that webpage, you need to perform certain tasks to prove you are human (though, the ones on the Whitehouse page are a bit more cumbersome than most C-R systems). So, now, the bigger question is whether or not Mailblocks, the company that claims to own patents on "challenge-response" will sue the Whitehouse? Mike Techdirt.com ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ <---- End Forwarded Message ----> Here is the autoreply I got back: <---- Begin Forwarded Message ----> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 09:54:43 -0500 (EST) From: Autoresponder@WhiteHouse.GOV Subject: Re: SOTU speech To: gep2@terabites.com Thank you for e-mailing President Bush. Your ideas and comments are very important to him. Because of the large volume of e-mail received, the President cannot personally respond to each message. However, the White House staff considers and reports citizen ideas and concerns. In addition to President@WhiteHouse.gov, we have developed White House Web Mail, an automated e-mail response system. Please access http://www.whitehouse.gov/webmail to submit comments on a specific issue. Additionally, we welcome you to visit our website for the most up-to-date information on current event and topics of interest to you. Received: from c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.71]) by WHITEHOUSE.GOV (PMDF V5.2-33 #30735) with SMTP id <01KYEEQOTDJ890YYFV@WHITEHOUSE.GOV> for president@Whitehouse.GOV; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 09:54:13 EST Received: (cpmta 4805 invoked from network); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 06:54:12 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.71) with SMTP; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 06:54:12 -0700 Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 08:53:42 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 09:23:28 -0500 Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 09:23:28 -0500 From: gep2@terabites.com Subject: SOTU speech To: president@Whitehouse.GOV Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Sent: 18 Jul 2003 13:54:12 GMT Comments: Text of the original message not included <---- End Forwarded Message ----> 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 Jul 18 14:54:49 2003 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 OAA08414 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:54:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19daN4-0000vA-7b for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:54:22 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6IIsMb3003534 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:54:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19daN4-0000uv-1z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:54:22 -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 OAA08391; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:54:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19daN1-0002fP-00; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:54:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19daMv-0002fM-00; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:54:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19daMj-0000sB-9F; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:54:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19daM9-0000rz-LO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:53:25 -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 OAA08357 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:53:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19daM6-0002eo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:53:22 -0400 Received: from 000-251-531.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.222.72] helo=68.27.222.72 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19daLv-0002ej-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:53:12 -0400 Message-Id: <6.0.0.12.0.20030718145229.02cd04e0@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.12 (Beta) To: Paul Judge , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] 0. ASRG Website updated Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 18 Jul 2003 14:52:30 -0400 At 01:42 PM 7/16/2003, you wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > > > > Would user education go under 7. Best Practices documents? > > What about in > > addition to promulgating a set of BCPs, setting up an active > > organization > > promoting the adoption of BCPs like the Web Standards Project? > > >I think that 7.a. BCP for End-users is 'user education'. It is at least the >creation of the material for educating users. I suppose the second part of >user education is distributing that information. Once we create it and make >it available, I do not know if we need a separate grassroots coalition to >promote it. There are a number of organizations that participate in >anti-spam efforts ranging from CAUCE to SpamCon to the FTC to the Center for >Democracy and Technology. Beyond the participants here and these >organizations, it is not clear what such a new organization would do. Can >you help clarify? I was addressing specifically the distribution part. I was thinking of more of a central distribution point for technical BCPs like best anti-spam configurations for MTAs, best settings for MUAs, etc. I was thinking more of a website where someone can go and select the MTA/MUA he is using, and be presented with a list of recommended settings and sample configuration files, and instructions how to implement them. I have not seen such existing project as of yet. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jul 18 17:05:46 2003 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 RAA13816 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:05:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dcPl-00059D-BE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:05:19 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6IL5HOt019782 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:05:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dcPl-00058z-7z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:05:17 -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 RAA13809; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:05:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dcPj-0003fM-00; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:05:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dcPd-0003fJ-00; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:05:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dcPV-000575-ID; Fri, 18 Jul 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 19dcP2-00056h-G7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:04:32 -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 RAA13797 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:04:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dcOx-0003el-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:04:27 -0400 Received: from 000-251-531.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.222.72] helo=68.27.222.72 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dcOk-0003ea-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:04:15 -0400 Message-Id: <6.0.0.12.0.20030718170312.02caa1b0@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.12 (Beta) To: "C. Wegrzyn" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0.General - News Article - NYT Reports Porn Spam Hijacking Network Cc: mathew , asrg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 18 Jul 2003 17:03:14 -0400 This is simply something the ISP would implement on their MTAs. It does not solve the problem of hijacked computers sending email directly to other MTAs. However, Mike was proposing this in conjunction with the RMX proposal, which resolves the problem of hijacked computers bypassing the ISP's MTAs. At 07:30 AM 7/16/2003, C. Wegrzyn wrote: >Yakov, > >Wouldn't the proposal by Mike only work with someone sending to a single >site? I am confused as to how my SMTP can be throttled when I spurt emails >to a number of MTAs? Is this something an ISP has to implement? > >Chuck Wegrzyn > > >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >>At 06:07 PM 7/15/2003 -0400, mathew wrote: >> >>>On Tuesday, July 15, 2003, at 08:47 AM, Alan DeKok wrote: >>> >>>>mathew wrote: >>> >>>.... >>> >>>> Spam filtering on outbound messages is perfectly permissible in many >>>>cases, and legally required in many. Do you really think that it's >>>>legally acceptable for businesses to allow their employees to send >>>>(whatever illegal content) to each other, or to people outside of the >>>>company? >>> >>> >>>So you're proposing that ISPs be required to run something like >>>SpamAssassin on all *outgoing* e-mail, and bounce e-mail back at the >>>user if it looks like spam? >>> >>>I see a problem with that--will users accept it, or will they take their >>>money elsewhere? I know that when *I* send an e-mail, I expect it to be >>>sent--if my ISP bounces it back because they don't like the content, >>>it's time for me to find another ISP. >> >> >>Sometime back Mike Rubel proposed implementing a rate limit on outgoing >>messages (see >>http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg04616.html). >>If too many messages are sent within a set amount of time, they are held >>in queue and a message is sent to the ISP subscriber warning him about a >>possible infection. Same can apply to too many outgoing spam messages >>(see >>http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg04629.html). >>A sample warning would be as follows: >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Dear customer, >> >> We apologize for this intrusion. >> >> Our systems indicate that your computer attempted to send a large >> number of emails over the last ten minutes. Because unusually >> large volumes of outbound email sometimes indicate the presence of >> a computer virus, we wanted to check with you before proceeding. >> These and further emails will be placed in a temporary >> quarantine while we await your instructions. We respect your >> privacy, and will not read or otherwise disclose the messages >> without your permission. >> >> Please call (800) 123-4567 at your earliest convenience so that >> we may process your request without further delay. We appreciate >> your business and look forward to serving you again in the future. >> >> --Your friendly email service providers >> To change your notification settings, please go to: >> https://www.exampleisp.com/my_account_settings/web_form.php >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>_______________________________________________ >>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 Sat Jul 19 14:20:09 2003 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 OAA19289 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:20:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dwJ5-0006wZ-6K for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:19:43 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6JIJhHw026685 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:19:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dwJ5-0006wK-29 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:19:43 -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 OAA19272; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:19:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dwJ2-0003Ul-00; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:19:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dwIw-0003Ue-00; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:19:34 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dwIP-0006t9-70; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:19:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dlel-000616-OI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 19 Jul 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 CAA07342 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 02:57:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dleh-0007H7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 02:57:19 -0400 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dleX-0007Gu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 02:57:09 -0400 Received: from ndu-2-49.inweb.net.uk (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h6J6xeF25620 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 23:59:40 -0700 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/11) Personal Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <7768184464.20030718144617@brandenburg.com> To: ASRG list Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - IPv6 support (was Re: [Asrg] Proposal: NO_XMIT DNS record) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030713204531.00b394b0@std5.imagineis.com> References: <20030713011546.B1981@m433> <5.2.0.9.2.20030713204531.00b394b0@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, 18 Jul 2003 14:46:17 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, YS> This brings to mind a general issue, should IPv6 support be part of the YS> requirements? Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, but I think this is like saying that ethernet and ppp dial-up support should be part of the requirements. In other words, we are working at too high a level for the choice of networking-level protocol to be relevant. However, if anyone can explain how IPv6 details are relevant to Internet email-related spam control mechanisms, please do. 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 Sat Jul 19 14:58:15 2003 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 OAA19932 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:58:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dwty-0007rE-JM for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:57:50 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6JIvoJG030198 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:57:50 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dwty-0007qz-Fa for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:57:50 -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 OAA19926; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:57:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dwtv-0003jY-00; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:57:47 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dwtq-0003jV-00; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:57:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dwtB-0007kg-Ea; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:57:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dwsZ-0007kR-R7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:56:23 -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 OAA19913 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:56:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dwsX-0003jD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:56:21 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dwsM-0003jA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:56:10 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:54:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:42:20 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'ASRG list'" Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - IPv6 support (was Re: [Asrg] Proposal: NO_ XMIT DNS record) 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: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:42:19 -0400 I agree. Most systems are agnostic to the network-layer protocol. For the few that are not, it still seems that this is an implementation detail that would be of concern only later in the proposal's development. Requirements should deal with higher-level system goals, design objectives, and constraints. The spirit of the IPv6 question seems to be captured in the current requirements draft by the goals around interoperability and ease of deployment. > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com] > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 8:46 AM > To: ASRG list > Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - IPv6 support (was Re: [Asrg] > Proposal: NO_XMIT DNS record) > > > Folks, > > YS> This brings to mind a general issue, should IPv6 support > be part of > YS> the requirements? > > Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, but I think this is > like saying that ethernet and ppp dial-up support should be > part of the requirements. > > In other words, we are working at too high a level for the > choice of networking-level protocol to be relevant. > > However, if anyone can explain how IPv6 details are relevant > to Internet email-related spam control mechanisms, please do. > > 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 exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 20 12:05:55 2003 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 MAA21951 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 12:05:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eGgk-0003Ie-3o for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 12:05:30 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6KG5UpS012678 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 12:05:30 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eGgj-0003IP-Vw for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 12:05:30 -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 MAA21925; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 12:05:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eGgi-0003GY-00; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 12:05:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eGgd-0003GV-00; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 12:05:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eGgI-0003Fv-3C; Sun, 20 Jul 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 19eGfW-0003FN-5D for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 12:04:14 -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 MAA21885 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 12:04:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eGfU-0003FC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 12:04:12 -0400 Received: from ns1.stop-spam.org ([208.201.243.58] helo=www.stop-spam.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eGfJ-0003Eu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 12:04:01 -0400 Received: from mark-s (dial-209-148-98-103.sonic.net [209.148.98.103] (may be forged)) by www.stop-spam.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA24741 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:43:35 -0700 Message-ID: <3F1ABEA8.6009@the-carrot-and-the-stick.com> From: Mark Ferguson Organization: The Carrot and the Stick X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "'ASRG list'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] New to the 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: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 09:09:12 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greetings all, Some of you may know me some of you may not so I thought I would write a little about myself as a way of introducing myself. Ted, I am glad to see you on this list. I think that stopping spam has overshadowed the reason(s) why we go to such great lengths to stop the junk... to keep email a useful tool for communication. I was looking for the Best Practices section for the ASRG and did not find them readily available. Any online best practices might be tied to the brick and mortar world as well. My reasoning for this is simply to reward good business ethics instead of rewarding bad ethical practices. To this end, we have created a project to do this. Some of the other principals you may know or may not know. I apologize if this is inappropriate for this list but I think all aspects of the spam issue must be addressed and the good guys that follow the rules but are inappropriately blacklisted has not been addressed. Questions and/or comments? -- Mark Ferguson The Carrot and the Stick http://www.whew.com/Help/ http://the-carrot-and-the-stick.com/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 20 14:47:10 2003 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 OAA24283 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:47:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eJCn-0006wB-5h for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:46:45 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6KIkj9p026661 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:46:45 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eJCn-0006vw-2f for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:46:45 -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 OAA24271; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:46:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eJCk-0004R0-00; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:46:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eJCe-0004Qs-00; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:46:36 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eJC6-0006rO-Cc; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:46:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eJBE-0006r4-R4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:45:08 -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 OAA24233 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:45:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eJBC-0004Pn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:45:06 -0400 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eJB1-0004PB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:44:55 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:43:00 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:43:02 -0400 Message-ID: <01C34ECD.38F15C70.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Pete McNeil'" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through 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, 20 Jul 2003 14:34:48 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I agree too, that it is not a requirement. This level of precision was not a requirement in the current draft either of course, it is a quote from an article not the draft requirements. (BTW, I am trying to catch up so I know this is probably way out of scope by now). -e On Thursday, July 10, 2003 9:40 AM, Pete McNeil [SMTP:madscientist@microneil.com] wrote: > I think you are correct. > > For my opinion, it cannot be a requirement because the definition of > spam and non-spam is inconsistent, and because no mechanism for > determining this is perfect. > > No doubt that it should be a _goal_ however. > > _M > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > >Behalf Of Yakov Shafranovich > >Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 12:43 AM > >To: asrg@ietf.org > >Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through > > > > > >Going back to the original question > >(https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current > >/msg06391.html): > > > >"Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam > >messages reach > >their intended recipients." > > > >Am I correct in assuming that the overall opinion of the group > >seems to be > >that this statement cannot be part of the requirements? > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 Jul 20 14:57:35 2003 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 OAA24408 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:57:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eJMr-00079V-Vl for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:57:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6KIv9nO027487 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:57:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eJMr-00079G-Sl for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:57:09 -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 OAA24404; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:57:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eJMo-0004TC-00; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:57:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eJMj-0004T9-00; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:57:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eJMj-00076I-Kp; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:57:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eJM6-000760-Bv for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:56:22 -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 OAA24399 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:56:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eJM3-0004T4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:56:19 -0400 Received: from ns1.stop-spam.org ([208.201.243.58] helo=www.stop-spam.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eJLs-0004Sp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:56:08 -0400 Received: from mark-s (dial-209-148-98-49.sonic.net [209.148.98.49] (may be forged)) by www.stop-spam.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA00434 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:35:37 -0700 Message-ID: <3F1AE6FB.58A1@the-carrot-and-the-stick.com> From: Mark Ferguson Organization: The Carrot and the Stick X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through References: <01C34ECD.38F15C70.eric@infobro.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: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 12:01:15 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Eric D. Williams wrote: > > I agree too, that it is not a requirement. This level of precision was not a > requirement in the current draft either of course, it is a quote from an > article not the draft requirements. (BTW, I am trying to catch up so I know > this is probably way out of scope by now). > > -e > > On Thursday, July 10, 2003 9:40 AM, Pete McNeil > [SMTP:madscientist@microneil.com] wrote: > > I think you are correct. > > > > For my opinion, it cannot be a requirement because the definition of > > spam and non-spam is inconsistent, and because no mechanism for > > determining this is perfect. The primary issue in all definitions of spam is whether or not it is solicited. With this primary consideration, all else becomes secondary. I attempted to actually give a real world definition to spam a while back and it was met with both negative and positive reviews. Unsolicited Electronic Mail Solicitations. It sounds redundant but it actually accurately describes spam. This is not something that can be done automatically so it would just be an actual definition for spam and nothing more. It would include all solicitations and not just those of a clear commercial nature. > > No doubt that it should be a _goal_ however. > > > > _M > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > > >Behalf Of Yakov Shafranovich > > >Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 12:43 AM > > >To: asrg@ietf.org > > >Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through > > > > > > > > >Going back to the original question > > >(https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current > > >/msg06391.html): > > > > > >"Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam > > >messages reach > > >their intended recipients." > > > > > >Am I correct in assuming that the overall opinion of the group > > >seems to be > > >that this statement cannot be part of the requirements? -- Mark Ferguson The Carrot and the Stick http://www.whew.com/Help/ http://the-carrot-and-the-stick.com/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 20 15:09:35 2003 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 PAA25253 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:09:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eJYU-0007em-1s for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:09:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6KJ9Asg029426 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:09:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eJYT-0007eX-Tf for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:09:09 -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 PAA25190; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:09:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eJYQ-0004Xi-00; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:09:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eJYL-0004Xf-00; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:09:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eJYL-0007ba-4a; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:09:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eJXV-0007aI-TQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:08:09 -0400 Received: from infobro.com (black.infobro.com [63.71.25.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA25087 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:08:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:01:06 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:01:06 -0400 Message-ID: <01C34ECF.BF0C3170.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Walter Dnes , ASRG list Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - IPv6 support (was Re: [Asrg] Proposal: NO_XMIT DNS record) 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, 20 Jul 2003 15:00:54 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think 2.13 Other Platforms can be revised to reflect or include such a rationale. I am not sure it stands alone as a separate requirement. -e On Sunday, July 13, 2003 8:46 PM, Yakov Shafranovich [SMTP:research@solidmatrix.com] wrote: > At 01:15 AM 7/13/2003 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: > >.... > > > > 5) Given that IPV6 will get here eventually, it's probably a good idea > > to develope an IPV6 version at the same time as IPV4. > >... > > This brings to mind a general issue, should IPv6 support be part of the > requirements? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 20 15:33:37 2003 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 PAA26348 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:33:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eJvi-00085m-L6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:33:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6KJXAPF031100 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:33:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eJvi-00085I-Gk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:33:10 -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 PAA26331; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:33:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eJvg-0004f4-00; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:33:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eJvb-0004ey-00; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:33:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eJvZ-0007z9-0w; Sun, 20 Jul 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 19eJum-0007yd-JO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:32:12 -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 PAA26315 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:32:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eJul-0004eZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:32:11 -0400 Received: from infoseclab.com ([63.98.52.111]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eJua-0004e6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:32:00 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:31:06 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:31:07 -0400 Message-ID: <01C34ED3.F022E2F0.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'bob@wyman.us'" , "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Must Address Issue of Hijacked Computers 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, 20 Jul 2003 15:28:10 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Indeed, Additionally, the issue of hijacked systems IMHO is in fact at the far edges or even outside the realm of system activity which a 'global anti-spam' system could hope to address. Though methods of introduction of spam into the MTS is a serious issue, only if an MTS edge system were required to consult a human actor before submitting messages could this issue be comprehensively addressed (this is a cursory argument on this consideration). If the edge system could be forced to require this behavior that could be considered a 'feature' and marketed accordingly, but not a per se 'global anti-spam' solution. -e On Thursday, July 17, 2003 1:37 PM, Bob Wyman [SMTP:bob@wyman.us] wrote: > Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > Should the following be part of the requirements: > > "Proposals must address issues of hijacked > > computers used for sending spam." > No. This should not be a requirement for *all* proposals since > not all proposals rely on any particular knowledge of source server. On > the other hand, proposals which rely on knowledge of source servers > *should* address the issue of hijacked machines. > Undoubtedly, one of the objectives of research should be to > determine what, if any, unique problems are introduced by the use of > hijacked machines. However, the understanding that results from this > research will only be applicable to a subset of all of the various > mechanisms that may contribute to a reduction of spam. > > bob wyman > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 20 15:38:34 2003 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 PAA26446 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:38:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eK0V-00008h-MS for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:38:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6KJc7Uq000529 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:38:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eK0V-00008S-JM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:38:07 -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 PAA26440; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:38:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eK0U-0004gk-00; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:38:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eK0O-0004gh-00; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:38:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eK0O-0008Tt-Lp; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:38:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eJza-0008FR-NG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:37:10 -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 PAA26426 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:37:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eJzZ-0004gT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:37:09 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eJzO-0004gL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:36:58 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (dyn-64-96.tor.dial.tht.net [134.22.64.96]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E60B036A11 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:36:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:36:33 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - IPv6 support (was Re: [Asrg] Proposal: NO_XMIT DNS record) Message-ID: <20030720153633.A10469@m433> References: <20030713011546.B1981@m433> <5.2.0.9.2.20030713204531.00b394b0@std5.imagineis.com> <7768184464.20030718144617@brandenburg.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: <7768184464.20030718144617@brandenburg.com>; from dcrocker@brandenburg.com on Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 02:46:17PM +0200 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 20 Jul 2003 15:36:33 -0400 On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 02:46:17PM +0200, Dave Crocker wrote > In other words, we are working at too high a level for the choice of > networking-level protocol to be relevant. > > However, if anyone can explain how IPv6 details are relevant to Internet > email-related spam control mechanisms, please do. Maybe a better way to put it is that any proposal should not break when ported to an IPV6 environment. DNSbls are going to be interesting. IPV6 has only one address pointing to "self", i.e. ::1. IPV4 has 2^24 addresses in the 127.0.0.0/8 loopback block. This allows aggregators like Osirusoft to return different answers for an IP address, depending on which of several lists it may be in. zz.countries.nerd.dk returns 127.0.X.Y where X * 256 + Y = numeric ISO country code of the country of origin of the IP address. The current IPV4 decimal values of 127.X.Y.Z can be represented as ::FFFF:127.X.Y.Z under the legacy-support feature of IPV6. What worries me is that outfits with a vested interest in adoption of IPV6 may go out of their way to disrupt legacy support for IPV4 sooner rather than later. And it is legacy support, make no mistake about it. I suggest using link-local 64-bit address space for DNSbl return values. This will minimize the chances of stepping on somebody else's toes. For backwards compatability, may I suggest ::7F:0:0:0 through ::7F:FF:FF:FF. This will map exactly one-to-one with the space ::FFFF:127.0.0.0 through ::FFFF:127.255.255.255. A comparison that uses the 3 or 4 least-significant-bytes won't care whether the answer came from an IPV6 machine or an IPV4 machine. -- 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 Jul 20 15:43:36 2003 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 PAA26542 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:43:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eK5N-0000W1-6s for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:43:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6KJh9LM001910 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:43:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eK5M-0000T6-Vm for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:43:09 -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 PAA26534; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:43:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eK5L-0004iR-00; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:43:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eK5F-0004iN-00; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:43:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eK5F-0000NQ-Gx; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:43:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eK4c-0000LB-5T for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:42:22 -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 PAA26526 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:42:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eK4a-0004i9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:42:20 -0400 Received: from infoseclab.com ([63.98.52.111]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eK4Q-0004ht-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:42:10 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:39:32 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:39:33 -0400 Message-ID: <01C34ED5.1E41DFA0.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine'" , David Koblas Cc: "gep2@terabites.com" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Remote mailing 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, 20 Jul 2003 15:38:51 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Eric, Indeed, it may be however it is a 'feature' of many operating systems and is not definitively a 'security problem' unless the intent of the obfuscatory activity is 'mailicious' or malicious whichever you prefer ;-). -e On Wednesday, July 02, 2003 12:37 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine [SMTP:brunner@nic-naa.net] wrote: > ... That's a security problem ... > > Milage varies, for two of the four words in the phrase above. > > Some enet nic vendors allow the mac address to be user defined. > Most inet i/f vendors allow the ipv{4|6} address to be user defined. > ... > > The user defined character of these properties of network attachments > do not carry with them sensible guarantees about the uniquenss of the > user-defined MAC, anywhere, or the routability of the ip{4|6} address, > 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 exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 20 16:22:43 2003 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 PAA26346 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:33:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eJvi-00085b-JI for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:33:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6KJXANJ031085 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:33:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eJvi-00085H-F5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:33:10 -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 PAA26329; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:33:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eJvg-0004f1-00; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:33:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eJvb-0004ex-00; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:33:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eJvZ-0007zc-Fw; Sun, 20 Jul 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 19eJur-0007yi-Ph for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:32:17 -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 PAA26318 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:32:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eJuq-0004ec-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:32:16 -0400 Received: from infoseclab.com ([63.98.52.111]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eJuf-0004e6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:32:05 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:31:10 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:31:11 -0400 Message-ID: <01C34ED3.F2FC68C0.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Dave Crocker'" , ASRG list Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - IPv6 support (was Re: [Asrg] Proposal: NO_XMIT DNS record) 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, 20 Jul 2003 15:30:44 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dave, I take your point. What I would propose is that proposals may consider the import of various types of technologies with respect to the proposed methodology. -e On Friday, July 18, 2003 8:46 AM, Dave Crocker [SMTP:dcrocker@brandenburg.com] wrote: > Folks, > > YS> This brings to mind a general issue, should IPv6 support be part of the > YS> requirements? > > Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, but I think this is like saying > that ethernet and ppp dial-up support should be part of the > requirements. > > In other words, we are working at too high a level for the choice of > networking-level protocol to be relevant. > > However, if anyone can explain how IPv6 details are relevant to Internet > email-related spam control mechanisms, please do. > > 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 exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 20 16:54:21 2003 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 QAA27473 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:54:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eLBs-0001wl-0Y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:53:56 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6KKrtc3007477 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:53:56 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eLBr-0001wW-Sz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:53:55 -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 QAA27465; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:53:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eLBp-0005Av-00; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:53:53 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eLBk-0005As-00; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:53:48 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eLAz-0001sg-BB; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:53:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eLAe-0001sV-Tt for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:52:40 -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 QAA27461 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:52:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eLAc-0005Ac-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:52:38 -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 19eLAS-000596-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:52:28 -0400 Received: from dino ([66.120.64.130]) by magic1.org for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:45:41 -0700 Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Scott Nelson Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 20 Jul 2003 13:48:58 -0700 At 12:01 PM 7/20/03 -0700, Mark Ferguson wrote: ...> >I attempted to actually give a real world definition to spam a while >back and it was met with both negative and positive reviews. > This avowed purpose of this group is researching mechanisms to express consent. Attempting to discuss definitions of spam isn't just off topic for this group, it's /expressly/ off topic. However, if anyone would like an ear full about why their particular definition of spam is completely and utterly wrong, useless, and harmful to the internet community in general, I'd be happy to oblige them /off list/. And no, it doesn't matter what your definition is, I'm sure I can provide several paragraphs of argument against it regardless. Scott Nelson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 20 18:26:41 2003 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 SAA29761 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:26:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eMdF-00042X-4d for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:26:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6KMQHJ0015528 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:26:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eMdE-00042N-HI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:26:16 -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 SAA29757; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:26:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eMdB-0005Zm-00; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:26:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eMd5-0005Zj-00; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:26:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eMd0-00040V-1v; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:26:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eMcU-0003yk-6v for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:25:30 -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 SAA29740 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:25:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eMcR-0005Zc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:25:27 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr7.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eMcG-0005ZQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:25:16 -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 OYM57293; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:24:51 -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 ALC68118; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:24:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200307202224.ALC68118@ms3.verisignmail.com> Received: from 66.108.193.77 by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with HTTP/1.1; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:24:47 -0400 From: Bob Wyman Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through To: Mark Ferguson 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: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:24:47 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark Ferguson wrote: > The primary issue in all definitions of spam is whether > or not it is solicited. Not *all* definitions. Only the ones that are unnecessarily broad and thus not useful in the process of defining anti-spam mechanisms. I often receive unsolicited "solicitations" via email that I am very, very happy to receive. These include emails from old school friends, potential business partners, etc. These are solicitations that I *want* to receive but haven't explicitly solicited. These are also solicitations sent by people who have a real and sincere belief that I will, in fact, wish to read their mail. The thing that most distinguishes spam for me is the fact that the sender of the spam is aware that only a tiny portion of the receivers will, in fact, be pleased to receive the mail. It is this decision to inconvenience massive numbers of people for personal gain that makes it such a repulsive action. If being "solicited" was the only measure of whether something is spam then the "solution" to spam would simply be to implement absolute whitelists. Then, only "solicited" or approved senders could send mail. All unsolicited mail would get trashed -- and, you'd never discover that "Kathy" who you had a crush on in high school is desperately trying to "solicit" you to join her for a coffee and catch up on old times and... The mere fact that whitelists alone do not appear to be the solution to spam should be a clear indication that the definition of spam is more subtle and nuanced than you suggest. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 20 19:16:38 2003 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 TAA00586 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:16:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eNPY-0005HL-Un for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:16:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6KNGCcT020285 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:16:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eNPY-0005H6-Qb for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:16:12 -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 TAA00563; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:16:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eNPX-0005mo-00; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:16:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eNPR-0005ml-00; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:16:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eNPN-0005E6-86; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:16:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eNOV-0005B6-P8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:15:07 -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 TAA00528 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:15:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eNOU-0005mC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:15:06 -0400 Received: from law12-f45.law12.hotmail.com ([64.4.19.45] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eNOJ-0005lM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:14:55 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:14:05 -0700 Received: from 12.254.138.252 by lw12fd.law12.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:14:03 GMT X-Originating-IP: [12.254.138.252] X-Originating-Email: [pontifier@hotmail.com] From: "John Fenley" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jul 2003 23:14:05.0530 (UTC) FILETIME=[9D683BA0:01C34F14] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 20 Jul 2003 17:14:03 -0600 From: "Scott Nelson" >At 12:01 PM 7/20/03 -0700, Mark Ferguson wrote: >...> > >I attempted to actually give a real world definition to spam a while > >back and it was met with both negative and positive reviews. > > > >This avowed purpose of this group is researching mechanisms to express >consent. > >Attempting to discuss definitions of spam isn't just off topic >for this group, it's /expressly/ off topic. > Perhaps, by this logic, even defining consent constitutes a once removed definition of spam. A possible solution, then, is to ignore all definitions because there may be some qualities that are not possible to implement. Instead perhaps we should focus on what is possible, then build systems using those known things in much the way that a complex program is built from basic libraries. This would mean that definitions of consent, spam, and anything else would be tied to the implementation, and would vary from system to system. Definitions need never be mentioned. Perhaps expanding and refining a list of the possible would help us to create a comprehensive set of tools to aid in the creation of a complete system. John Fenley www.Choicelist.com _________________________________________________________________ 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 exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 20 23:19:43 2003 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 XAA04257 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:19:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eRCn-0002Ib-Ud for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:19:18 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6L3JHqP008835 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:19:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eRCn-0002IQ-LR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:19:17 -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 XAA04249; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:19:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eRCl-0006wC-00; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:19:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eRCg-0006w9-00; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:19:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eRCX-0002Gb-FR; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:19:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eRC8-0002GK-OK for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:18:37 -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 XAA04239 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:18:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eRC6-0006vx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:18:34 -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 19eRBw-0006vu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:18:24 -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 19eRAj-0004Tb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:17:09 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 20 Jul 2003 17:14:03 MDT." 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, 20 Jul 2003 23:17:09 -0400 "John Fenley" wrote: > Perhaps, by this logic, even defining consent constitutes a once removed > definition of spam. "spam is any message I do not consent to receive" Or, rephrased so as to be nearly meaningless, "spam is, for me, whatever I say it is." Which immediately results in the obvious conclusion that the details of my definition of spam may nearly always disagree with your definition of spam, even though we both agree to implement inter-operable systems which exchange consent. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 21 06:13:44 2003 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 GAA22531 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 06:13:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eXfT-00078y-I4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 06:13:19 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6LADJis027461 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 06:13:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eXfT-00078q-8y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 06:13:19 -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 GAA22527; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 06:13:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eXfP-0001SE-00; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 06:13:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eXfJ-0001SB-00; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 06:13:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eXfB-00076y-3l; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 06:13:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eXeo-00076n-UH for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 06:12:38 -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 GAA22523 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 06:12:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eXel-0001S8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 06:12:35 -0400 Received: from tarbolton.demon.co.uk ([212.229.119.215] helo=killerbees.co.uk) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eXeZ-0001S3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 06:12:24 -0400 Received: from mailtest ([192.168.0.2]) by killerbees.co.uk (JAMES SMTP Server 3.0a1) with SMTP ID 708 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:27:16 +0100 (BST) From: "Danny Angus" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through 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 (9.0.2910.0) 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: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:15:34 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > This avowed purpose of this group is researching mechanisms > to express consent. Well, not if you read the website: "The purpose of the ASRG is to understand the problem and collectively propose and evaluate solutions to the problem." > Attempting to discuss definitions of spam isn't just off topic > for this group, it's /expressly/ off topic. I agree that this has been decided, however I'd also draw your attention to the website where it also says: "The Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) focuses on the problem of unwanted email messages, loosely referred to as spam" From which we must assume that this group exists to research the _whole_ of the problem not only from the POV of what is practically possible, but also from the POV of identifying what is and isn't within the scope of the problem. The problem I keep seeing here is that there are many facets to this broad definition, and individual participants generally have particular needs that reflect only a few of these, so that the situation arises where well meaning people attempt to steer the whole of the discussion into a single channel of thought. I don't believe it is necessary or productive to define spam more closely than the mission statement, nor to attempt to find a single silver bullet for what is in fact only a collection of loosely related problems. d. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 21 07:02:37 2003 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 HAA24026 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:02:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eYQn-000087-Iu for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:02:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6LB2Ds9000495 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:02:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eYQn-00007u-G4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:02:13 -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 HAA24006; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:02:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eYQj-0001nH-00; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:02:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eYQd-0001nE-00; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:02:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eYQb-000064-BD; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:02:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eYPq-00004y-US for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:01:14 -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 HAA23979 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:01:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eYPm-0001mr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:01:10 -0400 Received: from mxsmta01.inithost.com ([209.235.30.103] helo=mxsmta01.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eYPc-0001ml-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:01:00 -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 <20030721110246.EHOB11647.mxsmta01.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com> for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:02:46 -0400 Message-ID: <3F1BC7DB.8070806@garbagedump.com> From: C Wegrzyn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030716 Thunderbird/0.1a X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through 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: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:00:43 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I might suggest that before this conversation takes off it would be better to read the archives. Every once in a while some one attempts a stab at the definition, and we all get to the same point. A clear, simple definition just isn't possible. Chuck Wegrzyn Danny Angus wrote: >>This avowed purpose of this group is researching mechanisms >>to express consent. > > > Well, not if you read the website: > "The purpose of the ASRG is to understand the problem and collectively > propose and evaluate solutions to the problem." > > >>Attempting to discuss definitions of spam isn't just off topic >>for this group, it's /expressly/ off topic. > > > I agree that this has been decided, however I'd also draw your attention to > the website where it also says: > > "The Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) focuses on the problem of unwanted > email messages, loosely referred to as spam" > >>From which we must assume that this group exists to research the _whole_ of > the problem not only from the POV of what is practically possible, but also > from the POV of identifying what is and isn't within the scope of the > problem. > > The problem I keep seeing here is that there are many facets to this broad > definition, and individual participants generally have particular needs that > reflect only a few of these, so that the situation arises where well meaning > people attempt to steer the whole of the discussion into a single channel of > thought. > > I don't believe it is necessary or productive to define spam more closely > than the mission statement, nor to attempt to find a single silver bullet > for what is in fact only a collection of loosely related problems. > > d. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 21 09:44:48 2003 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 JAA27076 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:44:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eaxh-0005NY-Ua for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:44:22 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6LDiLsR020670 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:44:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eaxh-0005NJ-RT for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:44:21 -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 JAA27069; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:44:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eaxf-0002x9-00; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:44:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eaxa-0002x6-00; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:44:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eaxN-0005KM-Fq; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:44:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eawZ-0005K5-Dl for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:43:11 -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 JAA27064 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:43:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eawX-0002wd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:43:09 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eawM-0002wM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:42:58 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:41:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:29:36 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Danny Angus'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: 4.d. mapping personal definitions of spam to the consent framewor k (was RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through) 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, 21 Jul 2003 09:29:32 -0400 You're right. Additionally, let's nip this topic in the bud before it goes any further. Below is a copy of a message that I sent to the list about a month ago. It seems that every month or so, the 'definition of spam' conversation comes up. Therefore, it is worthwhile to revisit the view of how these personal definitions of spam are encompassed by the consent framework. A useful conversation at this point is how do we need to further define the consent framework to achieve this goal. The current draft that has been put forth can be found at: http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-consent-framework.html -- begin original message from https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05307.html -- 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. -end original message- > -----Original Message----- > From: Danny Angus [mailto:danny@apache.org] > Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 6:16 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through > > > > > This avowed purpose of this group is researching mechanisms > to express > > consent. > > Well, not if you read the website: > "The purpose of the ASRG is to understand the problem and > collectively propose and evaluate solutions to the problem." > > > Attempting to discuss definitions of spam isn't just off topic for > > this group, it's /expressly/ off topic. > > I agree that this has been decided, however I'd also draw > your attention to the website where it also says: > > "The Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) focuses on the problem > of unwanted email messages, loosely referred to as spam" > > From which we must assume that this group exists to research > the _whole_ of the problem not only from the POV of what is > practically possible, but also from the POV of identifying > what is and isn't within the scope of the problem. > > The problem I keep seeing here is that there are many facets > to this broad definition, and individual participants > generally have particular needs that reflect only a few of > these, so that the situation arises where well meaning people > attempt to steer the whole of the discussion into a single > channel of thought. > > I don't believe it is necessary or productive to define spam > more closely than the mission statement, nor to attempt to > find a single silver bullet for what is in fact only a > collection of loosely related problems. > > d. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 21 11:23:43 2003 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 LAA00699 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:23:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ecVR-0000re-7S for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:23:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6LFNHbN003318 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:23:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ecVR-0000rR-3m for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:23:17 -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 LAA00665; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:23:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ecVQ-0003lE-00; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:23:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ecVK-0003lB-00; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:23:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ecVB-0000pT-ER; Mon, 21 Jul 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 19ecUc-0000pA-JX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:22:26 -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 LAA00659 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:22:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ecUb-0003kp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:22:25 -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 19ecUR-0003kX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:22:15 -0400 Received: from aland by mail.nitros9.org with local (Exim 3.34 #1) id 19ecTD-0004cv-00; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:20:59 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. - Spam Characterization - Possible Measurements (was : RE: Two ways to look at spam) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:24:18 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: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:20:59 -0400 Paul Judge wrote: > Here is a list of characteristics that I'd put together. They are grouped by > sending, source, message, and spam attack characteristics. I've also added > the three suggested by Barry. What others should we consider? I would also group these characteristics by an orthogonal metric, which may help address political/social issues, in addition to network ones. The intention is that by characterizing their behaviour by two independent metrics, we will be better able to distinguish between bad network practices by spammers who *intend* to behave badly, and bad network practices by people who make mistakes. There are three categories of spammer behaviour, which are unrelated to network issues & message content: a) spamming with the willing cooperation of third parties "working with like-minded people" who: spam houses spam friendly ISP's individuals paid to host spam software b) spamming by defrauding third parties "taking advantage of peoples trust" who: individual spammers one-off accounts lies to "naive" ISP's (i.e. ones pretending they don't know) c) spamming with the unwilling cooperation of third parties "bypassing trust through potentially illegal activities" who: viruses, trojans, worms > Sending Characteristics: > Forged email addresses > ... The methods used to address this (or any other) network characteristic will vary, depending on the three off-network characteristics defined above. e.g. Proposals like RMX may help address forged emails in situations (c), are less useful in (b), and will not help at all in (a). In fact, almost no network-based anti-spam proposal will help in situation (a), except for disconnection. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 21 17:04:20 2003 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 RAA10825 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:04:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ehp4-0006LK-Oe for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:03:54 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6LL3sW7024383 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:03:54 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ehp4-0006LC-J4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:03:54 -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 RAA10807; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:03:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ehp2-0006MK-00; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:03:52 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ehow-0006MG-00; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:03:46 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ehoC-0006J0-TV; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:03:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ehnV-0006F8-NS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:02:17 -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 RAA10756 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:02:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ehnT-0006Lq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:02:15 -0400 Received: from 000-241-955.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.184.148] helo=68.27.184.148 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ehnG-0006Li-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:02:03 -0400 Message-Id: <6.0.0.12.0.20030721170108.02d20dd8@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.12 (Beta) To: Paul Judge , "'ASRG list'" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - IPv6 support (was Re: [Asrg] Proposal: NO_ XMIT DNS record) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 21 Jul 2003 17:01:09 -0400 Both IPv6 and DNS-SEC issue that was discussed before are technologies that are either being planned or are being slowly implemented. In the general requirements goals, etc. the issue of interoperability with FUTURE or PLANNED technologies is something that should be touched on. At 02:42 PM 7/19/2003, Paul Judge wrote: >I agree. Most systems are agnostic to the network-layer protocol. For the >few that are not, it still seems that this is an implementation detail that >would be of concern only later in the proposal's development. > >Requirements should deal with higher-level system goals, design objectives, >and constraints. > >The spirit of the IPv6 question seems to be captured in the current >requirements draft by the goals around interoperability and ease of >deployment. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com] > > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 8:46 AM > > To: ASRG list > > Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - IPv6 support (was Re: [Asrg] > > Proposal: NO_XMIT DNS record) > > > > > > Folks, > > > > YS> This brings to mind a general issue, should IPv6 support > > be part of > > YS> the requirements? > > > > Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, but I think this is > > like saying that ethernet and ppp dial-up support should be > > part of the requirements. > > > > In other words, we are working at too high a level for the > > choice of networking-level protocol to be relevant. > > > > However, if anyone can explain how IPv6 details are relevant > > to Internet email-related spam control mechanisms, please do. > > > > 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 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 21 17:04:46 2003 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 RAA10842 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:04:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ehpV-0006Q6-Bk for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:04:21 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6LL4LQI024672 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:04:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ehpV-0006Pr-8j for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:04:21 -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 RAA10821; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:04:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ehpP-0006Ml-00; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:04:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ehpK-0006MZ-00; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:04:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ehpA-0006Ml-Hi; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:04:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ehp1-0006L7-Fc for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:03:51 -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 RAA10804 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:03:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ehoz-0006MF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:03:49 -0400 Received: from 000-241-955.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.184.148] helo=68.27.184.148 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ehod-0006M4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:03:36 -0400 Message-Id: <6.0.0.12.0.20030721170108.02d20dd8@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.12 (Beta) To: Paul Judge , "'ASRG list'" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - IPv6 support (was Re: [Asrg] Proposal: NO_ XMIT DNS record) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 21 Jul 2003 17:01:09 -0400 Both IPv6 and DNS-SEC issue that was discussed before are technologies that are either being planned or are being slowly implemented. In the general requirements goals, etc. the issue of interoperability with FUTURE or PLANNED technologies is something that should be touched on. At 02:42 PM 7/19/2003, Paul Judge wrote: >I agree. Most systems are agnostic to the network-layer protocol. For the >few that are not, it still seems that this is an implementation detail that >would be of concern only later in the proposal's development. > >Requirements should deal with higher-level system goals, design objectives, >and constraints. > >The spirit of the IPv6 question seems to be captured in the current >requirements draft by the goals around interoperability and ease of >deployment. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com] > > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 8:46 AM > > To: ASRG list > > Subject: Re: 3. Requirements - IPv6 support (was Re: [Asrg] > > Proposal: NO_XMIT DNS record) > > > > > > Folks, > > > > YS> This brings to mind a general issue, should IPv6 support > > be part of > > YS> the requirements? > > > > Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, but I think this is > > like saying that ethernet and ppp dial-up support should be > > part of the requirements. > > > > In other words, we are working at too high a level for the > > choice of networking-level protocol to be relevant. > > > > However, if anyone can explain how IPv6 details are relevant > > to Internet email-related spam control mechanisms, please do. > > > > 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 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 21 17:09:34 2003 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 RAA10930 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:09:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ehu9-00070g-7o for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:09:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6LL99kY026946 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:09:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ehu8-00070X-Qq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 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 RAA10912; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:09:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ehu6-0006OL-00; Mon, 21 Jul 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 19ehu0-0006OI-00; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:09:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ehu0-0006xU-W1; Mon, 21 Jul 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 19ehtL-0006x3-NN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:08:19 -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 RAA10904 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:08:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ehtJ-0006O1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:08:17 -0400 Received: from relay2.softcomca.com ([168.144.1.68]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eht8-0006Ns-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:08:06 -0400 Received: from M2W049.mail2web.com ([168.144.251.156]) by relay2.softcomca.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:07:17 -0400 Message-ID: <293580-22003712121716994@M2W049.mail2web.com> X-Priority: 3 Reply-To: eric@infobro.com X-Originating-IP: 140.90.159.106 X-URL: http://mail2web.com/ From: "eric@infobro.com" To: aland@freeradius.org, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. - Spam Characterization - Possible Measurements (was : RE: Two ways to look at spam) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jul 2003 21:07:17.0026 (UTC) FILETIME=[10CC6820:01C34FCC] 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, 21 Jul 2003 17:07:16 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This analysis methodology works for me=2E -e Original Message: ----------------- From: Alan DeKok aland@freeradius=2Eorg Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:20:59 -0400 To: asrg@ietf=2Eorg Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2=2E - Spam Characterization - Possible Measurements (= was : RE: Two ways to look at spam)=20 Paul Judge wrote: > Here is a list of characteristics that I'd put together=2E They are grou= ped by > sending, source, message, and spam attack characteristics=2E I've also a= dded > the three suggested by Barry=2E What others should we consider? I would also group these characteristics by an orthogonal metric, which may help address political/social issues, in addition to network ones=2E The intention is that by characterizing their behaviour by two independent metrics, we will be better able to distinguish between bad network practices by spammers who *intend* to behave badly, and bad network practices by people who make mistakes=2E There are three categories of spammer behaviour, which are unrelated to network issues & message content: a) spamming with the willing cooperation of third parties =09"working with like-minded people" =09who: =09=09spam houses =09=09spam friendly ISP's =09=09individuals paid to host spam software b) spamming by defrauding third parties =09"taking advantage of peoples trust" =09who: =09=09individual spammers =09=09one-off accounts =09=09lies to "naive" ISP's =09=09=09(i=2Ee=2E ones pretending they don't know) c) spamming with the unwilling cooperation of third parties =09"bypassing trust through potentially illegal activities" =09who: =09=09viruses, trojans, worms > Sending Characteristics:=20 > Forged email addresses > =2E=2E=2E The methods used to address this (or any other) network characteristic will vary, depending on the three off-network characteristics defined above=2E e=2Eg=2E Proposals like RMX may help address forged emails in situations (c), are less useful in (b), and will not help at all in (a)=2E In fact, almost no network-based anti-spam proposal will help in situation (a), except for disconnection=2E Alan DeKok=2E _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf=2Eorg https://www1=2Eietf=2Eorg/mailman/listinfo/asrg -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web=2Ecom/ =2E _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 22 00:34:06 2003 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 AAA19288 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:34:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eoqL-0002Q1-AD for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:33:41 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6M4XfoZ009293 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:33:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eoqL-0002Po-59 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:33:41 -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 AAA19282; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:33:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eoqI-0001DU-00; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:33:38 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eoqD-0001DR-00; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:33:33 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19eoph-0002No-AR; Tue, 22 Jul 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 19eooq-0002Mm-5q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:32:08 -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 AAA19269 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:32:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eoon-0001D8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:32:05 -0400 Received: from 000-241-955.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.184.148] helo=68.27.184.148) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eooZ-0001D5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:31:55 -0400 Message-Id: <6.0.0.12.0.20030722003105.02c9aec0@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.12 (Beta) 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 Subject: [Asrg] 4d. Consent Framework - Language for 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: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:31:06 -0400 Can a language for expressing consent be based on RuleML? See this site that discusses RuleML spec: http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/ruleml/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 22 01:29:44 2003 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 BAA20120 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 01:29:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19epi7-0004Fd-Ex for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 01:29:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6M5TFKs016335 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 01:29:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19epi7-0004FO-8X for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 01:29:15 -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 BAA20114; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 01:29:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19epi4-0001YW-00; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 01:29:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ephy-0001YT-00; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 01:29:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19epht-0004A9-2G; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 01:29:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ephG-00047Y-3e for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 01:28:22 -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 BAA20092 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 01:28:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ephD-0001YC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 01:28:19 -0400 Received: from law12-f19.law12.hotmail.com ([64.4.19.19] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eph2-0001Xm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 01:28:08 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:26:23 -0700 Received: from 12.254.138.252 by lw12fd.law12.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 05:26:22 GMT X-Originating-IP: [12.254.138.252] X-Originating-Email: [pontifier@hotmail.com] From: "John Fenley" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4d. Consent Framework - Language for consent Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jul 2003 05:26:23.0063 (UTC) FILETIME=[CA070670:01C35011] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 21 Jul 2003 23:26:22 -0600 From: "Yakov Shafranovich" >Can a language for expressing consent be based on RuleML? See this site >that discusses RuleML spec: > >http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/ruleml/ In my opinion this would be much to complex. I feel users should need to make as few decisions as possible to express their wanted consent system. You don't want to confuse people or they won't use it. The few choices they make should be clear, and should really mean something. John Fenley www.Choicelist.com _________________________________________________________________ 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 Tue Jul 22 04:05:23 2003 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 EAA05093 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 04:05:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19es8N-0002x9-Lc for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 04:04:31 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6M84V95011345 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 04:04:31 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19es8M-0002wu-NL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 04:04:30 -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 EAA05069; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 04:04:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19es8H-0002RC-00; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 04:04:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19es8C-0002R9-00; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 04:04:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19es7u-0002r6-Gv; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 04:04:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19es7h-0002qO-SL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 04:03:49 -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 EAA05052 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 04:03:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19es7f-0002Qu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 04:03:47 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19es7U-0002QX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 04:03:36 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19es79-0000h6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:03:15 +0100 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4d. Consent Framework - Language for consent To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.10] 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, 22 Jul 2003 09:03:15 +0100 > From: "Yakov Shafranovich" > >Can a language for expressing consent be based on RuleML? See this site > >that discusses RuleML spec: > > > >http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/ruleml/ > > > In my opinion this would be much to complex. > I feel users should need to make as few decisions as possible to express > their wanted consent system. > You don't want to confuse people or they won't use it. > I don't believe that most users will sit down and write their consent expression in vi. I'd expect that providers or MUA authors will provide some nice GUI for this purpose. I think the question is - would something like RuleML serve for representing Consent Expression. Remember that we need some vendor-neutral form for conveying CE between entities in the MTS. Given that we're envisaging the CE as some kind of production system, and given that this is the domain that RuleML works in, the answer has to be a firm "maybe" :-) -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 22 23:44:19 2003 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 XAA04593 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:44:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fAXh-0004Gi-Dv for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:43:53 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6N3hr8Z016402 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:43:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fAXh-0004GT-9g for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:43:53 -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 XAA04586; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:43:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fAXf-0001Ml-00; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:43:51 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fAXZ-0001Mg-00; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:43:45 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fAWr-0004BM-2V; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:43:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fAWF-0004As-PB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:42:25 -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 XAA04549 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:42:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fAWD-0001MA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:42:21 -0400 Received: from 000-232-396.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.146.241] helo=68.27.146.241 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fAW0-0001Lw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:42:11 -0400 Message-Id: <6.0.0.12.0.20030722234023.02cf5318@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.12 (Beta) To: Mark Ferguson , "'ASRG list'" From: Yakov Shafranovich Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Subject: [Asrg] 7c. Best Practices Documents - Mass Mailers (was Re: [Asrg] New to the 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, 22 Jul 2003 23:41:15 -0400 At 12:09 PM 7/20/2003, Mark Ferguson wrote: >........ >I was looking for the Best Practices section for the ASRG and did not >find them readily available. > >Any online best practices might be tied to the brick and mortar world as >well. My reasoning for this is simply to reward good business ethics >instead of rewarding bad ethical practices. > >To this end, we have created a project to do this. Some of the other >principals you may know or may not know. >...... Would you be willing to do some work on BCPs? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 22 23:48:34 2003 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 XAA04731 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:48:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fAbn-0004Uw-UD for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:48:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6N3m74V017284 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:48:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fAbn-0004Uh-Pt for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:48:07 -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 XAA04722; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:48:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fAbl-0001OM-00; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:48:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fAbg-0001OJ-00; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:48:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fAbh-0004OV-5Q; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:48:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fAbE-0004NQ-7i for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:47:32 -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 XAA04718 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:47:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fAbC-0001O9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:47:30 -0400 Received: from 000-232-396.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.146.241] helo=68.27.146.241 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fAaz-0001O6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:47:19 -0400 Message-Id: <6.0.0.12.0.20030722234437.02d05eb0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.12 (Beta) To: Paul Judge , "'asrg@ietf.org'" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. ASRG Website updated In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 22 Jul 2003 23:46:54 -0400 At 06:39 PM 7/14/2003, Paul Judge wrote: >... > >1. The updated Work Items/Research Agenda that was distributed on the >mailing list last week. I have not received any feedback on the research >agenda. Do we feel that it is complete? Also, a number of items on the list >need volunteers. >..... In particular 8. Evaluation, do we need to specify that every individual proposal needs to address every item listed in the requirements document? This has been the approach used by the IMPP WG. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 22 23:55:36 2003 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 XAA04906 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:55:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fAic-0004li-E7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:55:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6N3tASr018324 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:55:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fAic-0004lT-9z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:55:10 -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 XAA04887; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:55:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fAia-0001Qf-00; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:55:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fAiU-0001Qc-00; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:55:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fAiU-0004gj-2K; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:55:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fAi5-0004g5-6A for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:54:37 -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 XAA04880 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:54:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fAi3-0001QO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:54:35 -0400 Received: from 000-232-396.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.146.241] helo=68.27.146.241 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fAhq-0001QI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:54:24 -0400 Message-Id: <6.0.0.12.0.20030722235050.02cf49c8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.12 (Beta) To: Paul Judge , "'asrg@ietf.org'" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. ASRG Website updated In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 22 Jul 2003 23:54:00 -0400 At 06:39 PM 7/14/2003, Paul Judge wrote: >... >1. The updated Work Items/Research Agenda that was distributed on the >mailing list last week. I have not received any feedback on the research >agenda. Do we feel that it is complete? Also, a number of items on the list >need volunteers. >.... In particular - 5. identification of standardization requirements: Are we referring to possible opportunities for developing protocols here, such as the CRI protocol for C/R system interoperability? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 23 00:27:35 2003 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 AAA05373 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:27:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fBDZ-0005nr-OV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:27:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6N4R9wm022301 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:27:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fBDZ-0005nc-KK for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:27:09 -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 AAA05367; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:27:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fBDX-0001YR-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:27:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fBDR-0001YO-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:27:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fBDR-0005ke-09; Wed, 23 Jul 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 19fBDP-0005kT-5p for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:26:59 -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 AAA05364 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:26:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fBDM-0001YL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:26:56 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fBDC-0001YA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:26:46 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:24:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:11:57 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Paul Judge , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 0. ASRG Website updated 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: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:11:55 -0400 > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 11:54 PM > In particular - 5. identification of standardization requirements: > > Are we referring to possible opportunities for developing > protocols here, > such as the CRI protocol for C/R system interoperability? This refers to opportunities for developing technical standards. As the research agenda points to, Crocker's draft documents these opportunities. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 23 01:05:50 2003 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 BAA05816 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:05:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fBoX-0006jM-Vs for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:05:22 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6N55Lgi025866 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:05:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fBoX-0006j7-Rf for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:05:21 -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 BAA05800; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:05:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fBoU-0001fi-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:05:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fBoP-0001ff-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:05:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fBoD-0006hF-C4; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:05:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fBnt-0006gv-63 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:04:41 -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 BAA05794 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:04:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fBnq-0001fO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:04:38 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fBnf-0001fJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:04:27 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:03:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:50:47 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Paul Judge , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 0. ASRG Website updated 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: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:50:46 -0400 > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 11:47 PM > In particular 8. Evaluation, do we need to specify that every > individual > proposal needs to address every item listed in the > requirements document? > This has been the approach used by the IMPP WG. This would be ideal. First, we have to get a more mature draft of the requirements document done. Also, proposals should _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 23 01:14:36 2003 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 BAA05947 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:14:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fBx2-0007Im-Dm for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:14:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6N5E8Fl028062 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:14:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fBx2-0007Hy-9F for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:14:08 -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 BAA05943; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:14:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fBwz-0001jX-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:14:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fBwt-0001jU-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:13:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fBwu-0007C1-T6; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:14:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fBw7-0007Bn-9M for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:13:11 -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 BAA05930 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:13:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fBw4-0001j2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:13:08 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fBvt-0001ik-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:12:57 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:11:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:59:20 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Paul Judge , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 0. ASRG Website updated 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: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:59:19 -0400 > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 11:47 PM > To: Paul Judge; 'asrg@ietf.org' > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. ASRG Website updated > > > At 06:39 PM 7/14/2003, Paul Judge wrote: > >... > > > >1. The updated Work Items/Research Agenda that was > distributed on the > >mailing list last week. I have not received any feedback on the > >research agenda. Do we feel that it is complete? Also, a number of > >items on the list need volunteers. ..... > > In particular 8. Evaluation, do we need to specify that every > individual > proposal needs to address every item listed in the > requirements document? > This has been the approach used by the IMPP WG. > This would be ideal. First, we have to get a more mature draft of the requirements document done.(Speaking of which, if any group member would like to join Eric and Russell in maturing the requirements doc, please email me.) Also, proposals should include an analysis based on an agreed upon evaluation framework. The start of such an evaluation framework has been put together in Crocker's draft. The next step here is to define metrics for each of the characeristics. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 23 03:40:53 2003 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 DAA04829 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 03:40:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fEEa-00065W-Hb for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 03:40:24 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6N7eO8W023396 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 03:40:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fEEZ-000659-3y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 03:40:23 -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 DAA04784; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 03:40:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fEEW-0002kF-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 03:40:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fEER-0002kC-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 03:40:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fEED-00061g-No; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 03:40:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fEDc-00060c-5P for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 03:39:24 -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 DAA04734 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 03:39:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fEDZ-0002jQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 03:39:21 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fEDO-0002iA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 03:39:10 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by imail.centuryc.net (SMTPD32-8.00) id AB471EE60152; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:37:43 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 07:42:42 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <6b4f1cfe-068c-4aeb-82d3-2446395c58fb> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C350ED.55AB0B50" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: 0. Kudos to re-energized leadership Thread-Index: AcNQ7QxCxtQEJEo8Ri6UM4/6ALSZBA== From: "Peter Kay" To: Subject: [Asrg] 0. Kudos to re-energized leadership Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 22 Jul 2003 21:37:57 -1000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C350ED.55AB0B50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I just wanted to thank Paul Judge for recently embarking on a very active approach to moving things forward and keeping the group focused. Yakov as always is "all over this thing" and that's great. =20 =20 We've all noticed the SIGNIFICANTLY reduced useless banter on this list and I believe it's because Paul is taking a much stronger leadership role. =20 I will look for areas I feel I can meaningfully contribute and will do so when the situation presents itself. Until then, I deeply thank our dynamic duo of Judge/Shafranovich. In Hawaiian, we say "Mahalo Nui!". =20 Peter =20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C350ED.55AB0B50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
I just = wanted to=20 thank Paul Judge for recently embarking on a very active approach = to moving=20 things forward and keeping the group focused. Yakov as always is = "all over=20 this thing" and that's great. 
 
We've = all noticed=20 the SIGNIFICANTLY reduced useless banter on this list and I believe it's = because=20 Paul is taking a much stronger leadership role.
 
I will = look for=20 areas I feel I can meaningfully contribute and will do so when the = situation=20 presents itself.  Until then, I deeply thank our dynamic duo of=20 Judge/Shafranovich.  In Hawaiian, we say "Mahalo = Nui!".
 
Peter
 
 
=00 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C350ED.55AB0B50-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 23 09:48:43 2003 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 JAA12717 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:48:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fJya-0002MU-M6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:48:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6NDmGKM009072 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:48:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fJya-0002MF-I1 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:48:16 -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 JAA12709; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:48:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fJyY-0004oA-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:48:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fJyS-0004o7-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:48:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fJyK-0002KI-V5; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:48:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fJxb-0002Jw-8b for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:47:15 -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 JAA12692 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:47:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fJxZ-0004nz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:47:13 -0400 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fJxO-0004nl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:47:02 -0400 Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (americasm07.nt.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h6NDkA604787 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:46:10 -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 PFQ8DTY1; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:46:10 -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 3NRD7VAH; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:46:10 -0400 Message-ID: <3F1E9268.6080300@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 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 list'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 7c. Best Practices Documents - Mass Mailers (was Re: [Asrg] New to the list) References: <6.0.0.12.0.20030722234023.02cf5318@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, 23 Jul 2003 09:49:28 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > At 12:09 PM 7/20/2003, Mark Ferguson wrote: > >> ........ >> I was looking for the Best Practices section for the ASRG and did not >> find them readily available. > Would you be willing to do some work on BCPs? I've been involved in drafting some BCPs on filtering and DNSBLs, tho, they're still works in progress. How would I get these things into the ASRG "process"? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 23 12:13:46 2003 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 MAA18494 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:13:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fMEx-0001KN-HP for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:13:19 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6NGDJQl005097 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:13:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fMEx-0001K7-Cx for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:13:19 -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 MAA18460; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:13:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fMEv-0005tI-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:13:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fMEp-0005tF-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:13:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fMEf-0001GI-BK; Wed, 23 Jul 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 19fMDx-0001FD-4W for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:12:17 -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 MAA18408 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:12:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fMDv-0005sR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:12:15 -0400 Received: from 000-236-934.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.164.207] helo=68.27.164.207 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fMDj-0005sA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:12:05 -0400 Message-Id: <6.0.0.12.0.20030723120220.02dc9598@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.12 (Beta) 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 Subject: [Asrg] 2a. Spam Measurements - HTML Tricks Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 23 Jul 2003 12:02:21 -0400 A recent SlashDot article (http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/03/07/23/0135247.shtml) references ActiveState's "Field Guide to Spam" maintained by Dr. John Graham-Cumming. This guide lists a bunch of HTML tricks used by spammers. It can be found at: http://www.activestate.com/Products/PureMessage/Field_Guide_to_Spam/index.plex This list is something that can be added to our spam measurements efforts. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 23 12:36:39 2003 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 MAA19112 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:36:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fMb7-00025t-50 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:36:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6NGaDS6008043 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:36:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fMb7-00025e-1A for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:36:13 -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 MAA19100; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:36:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fMb5-00061k-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:36:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fMaz-00061h-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:36:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fMav-00023p-Ly; Wed, 23 Jul 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 19fMaI-00023I-Lj for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:35:22 -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 MAA19090 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:35:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fMaH-00061Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:35:21 -0400 Received: from 000-236-934.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.164.207] helo=68.27.164.207) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fMa4-00061O-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:35:10 -0400 Message-Id: <6.0.0.12.0.20030723123027.02cfbb78@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.12 (Beta) To: Paul Judge , "'asrg@ietf.org'" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] 0. ASRG Website updated In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 23 Jul 2003 12:33:18 -0400 At 12:11 AM 7/23/2003, Paul Judge wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 11:54 PM > > > In particular - 5. identification of standardization requirements: > > > > Are we referring to possible opportunities for developing > > protocols here, > > such as the CRI protocol for C/R system interoperability? > >This refers to opportunities for developing technical standards. As the >research agenda points to, Crocker's draft documents these opportunities. Two points come to mind. First, do we need to define a formal process by which proposed standards can be passed on to the IETF since IRTF RGs cannot make standards? Second, would an appendix summarizing a list of standard opportunities in the end of Crocker's draft make the document a bit more easier to read? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 23 12:42:35 2003 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 MAA19243 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:42:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fMgr-0002cn-7K for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:42:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6NGg90w010084 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:42:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fMgr-0002cZ-4S for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:42:09 -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 MAA19222; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:42:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fMgp-00063G-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:42:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fMgj-00063D-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:42:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fMgj-0002ZY-Eh; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:42:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fMgJ-0002WU-LE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:41:35 -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 MAA19215 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:41:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fMgI-000639-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:41:34 -0400 Received: from 000-236-934.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.164.207] helo=68.27.164.207 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fMg6-000636-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:41:23 -0400 Message-Id: <6.0.0.12.0.20030723123950.02ca6860@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.12 (Beta) To: Paul Judge , "'asrg@ietf.org'" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] 0. ASRG Website updated In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 23 Jul 2003 12:40:58 -0400 At 12:59 AM 7/23/2003, Paul Judge wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 11:47 PM > > To: Paul Judge; 'asrg@ietf.org' > > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. ASRG Website updated > > > > > > At 06:39 PM 7/14/2003, Paul Judge wrote: > > >... > > > > > >1. The updated Work Items/Research Agenda that was > > distributed on the > > >mailing list last week. I have not received any feedback on the > > >research agenda. Do we feel that it is complete? Also, a number of > > >items on the list need volunteers. ..... > > > > In particular 8. Evaluation, do we need to specify that every > > individual > > proposal needs to address every item listed in the > > requirements document? > > This has been the approach used by the IMPP WG. > > > >This would be ideal. First, we have to get a more mature draft of the >requirements document done.(Speaking of which, if any group member would >like to join Eric and Russell in maturing the requirements doc, please email >me.) Also, proposals should include an analysis based on an agreed upon >evaluation framework. The start of such an evaluation framework has been put >together in Crocker's draft. The next step here is to define metrics for >each of the characeristics. Should we start a point-by-point discussion of the requirements perhaps? And do we need additional documents for the evaluation framework besides Crocker's draft? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 23 12:48:36 2003 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 MAA19433 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:48:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fMmf-00035p-OV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:48:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6NGm9pX011883 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:48:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fMmf-00035a-Jl for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:48:09 -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 MAA19415; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:48:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fMmd-00066E-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:48:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fMmY-00066B-00; Wed, 23 Jul 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 19fMmW-00032V-Sq; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:48:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fMmB-000322-UV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:47:39 -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 MAA19394 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:47:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fMmA-00065s-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:47:38 -0400 Received: from 000-236-934.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.164.207] helo=68.27.164.207 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fMlx-00065k-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:47:27 -0400 Message-Id: <6.0.0.12.0.20030723124315.02ca6220@pop.pocketmail.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.12 (Beta) 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 Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Dealing with proposals Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 23 Jul 2003 12:47:04 -0400 In light of the fact that the requirements documents, the evaluation framework and the consent model are all works in progress, I think that we need an interim policy or framework on how to deal with new proposals. The research agenda (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_research_agenda.htm) states that " Some proposals need to be revisited with regard to the requirements, the evaluation model, and the consent framework. A template for proposals would also be useful." Are the documents mature enough at this point that they can be used for evaluating proposals? Also, proposals seem to cause the most problems on the list and tend to start flame attacks more than any other topics. This just re-enforces the need for some kind of policy on how proposals should be dealt with. Would someone like to volunteer to write up such policy and/or a template for proposals as well? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 23 13:03:10 2003 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 MAA18495 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:13:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fMEx-0001Kc-JQ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:13:19 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6NGDJ37005112 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:13:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fMEx-0001KA-FU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:13:19 -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 MAA18461; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:13:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fMEv-0005tM-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:13:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fMEq-0005tJ-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:13:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fMEf-0001GQ-Nb; Wed, 23 Jul 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 19fMDy-0001FI-2B for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:12:18 -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 MAA18411 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:12:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fMDw-0005sU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:12:16 -0400 Received: from 000-236-934.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.164.207] helo=68.27.164.207 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fMDj-0005sB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:12:06 -0400 Message-Id: <6.0.0.12.0.20030723120319.02d57048@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.12 (Beta) To: "Chris Lewis" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 7b. BCP - Mail Administrators (was Re: [Asrg] 7c. Best Practices Documents - Mass Mailers (was Re: [Asrg] New to the list)) Cc: "'ASRG list'" In-Reply-To: <3F1E9268.6080300@americasm01.nt.com> References: <6.0.0.12.0.20030722234023.02cf5318@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 23 Jul 2003 12:07:01 -0400 At 09:49 AM 7/23/2003, Chris Lewis wrote: >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >>At 12:09 PM 7/20/2003, Mark Ferguson wrote: >> >>>........ >>>I was looking for the Best Practices section for the ASRG and did not >>>find them readily available. >>Would you be willing to do some work on BCPs? > >I've been involved in drafting some BCPs on filtering and DNSBLs, tho, >they're still works in progress. > >How would I get these things into the ASRG "process"? This falls under item 7b - BCP for Mail Administrators in the research agenda (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_research_agenda.htm). You can do several things to get them into the ASRG process: 1. Volunteer to take care of that item - 7b - which includes all BCPs for mail administrators. This would include coordinating various other people to write and maintain BCPs. 2. Volunteer to take care of at some BCPs, and submit drafts to the mailing list. This would entail maintaining the documents only and updating them according to the responses from the list. Keep in mind existing RFCs on BCPs which are listed on (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_documents.htm): RFCs 2505, 2635 and 3098. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 23 17:25:50 2003 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 RAA03481 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:25:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fR6u-0007rJ-SX for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:25:21 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6NLPKFC030209 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:25:20 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fR6u-0007r7-Ob for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:25:20 -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 RAA03428; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:25:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fR6r-0000xC-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:25:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fR6j-0000vl-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:25:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fR2j-0007cE-B1; Wed, 23 Jul 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 19fR2Q-0007bM-KN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:20:42 -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 RAA03270 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:20:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fR2O-0000vR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:20:40 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fR2D-0000u9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:20:29 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:18:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:05:57 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 0. General - Dealing with proposals 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: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:05:55 -0400 > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 12:47 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Dealing with proposals > > > In light of the fact that the requirements documents, the evaluation > framework and the consent model are all works in progress, I > think that we > need an interim policy or framework on how to deal with new > proposals. The > research agenda > (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_research_agenda> .htm) states > > that " Some proposals need to be revisited > with regard to the requirements, > the evaluation model, and the consent framework. A template > for proposals > would also be useful." > > Are the documents mature enough at this point that they can > be used for > evaluating proposals? I would like to see another turn on the requirements doc first. I think that there was some feedback that has not made it in yet. The evaluation discussion in Crocker's draft is mature enough to guide people's thinking as they propose approaches. I do not know if it provides a view that is quantitative enough to allow comparison between systems. At the same time, while we want to require authors of proposals to go through this thought process, we have to be careful that the evaluation framework is not so heavyweight to dissuade folks making proposals. I do not think that the consent framework has matured to a point of clarity for many folks at this point. >Also, proposals seem to cause the most > problems on > the list and tend to start flame attacks more than any other > topics. This > just re-enforces the need for some kind of policy on how > proposals should > be dealt with. > Would someone like to volunteer to write up such policy > and/or a template > for proposals as well? I think that the first step is to require an evaluation according to a determined model in part to encourage thoughtfulness. From there, we are able to have a productive conversation analyzing the proposal. From an email I sent to list about a month ago: "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." I think that this needs to be part of an evaluation model. So perhaps on the way to creating a template, the first step is to build upon this thinking and the evaluation discussion in Crocker's draft to create a separate spam technology evaluation model document as mentioned as item 8.a. on the ASRG research agenda. Again, volunteers? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 23 17:57:39 2003 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 RAA04405 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:57:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fRbk-000175-RH for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:57:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6NLvCMd004273 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:57:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fRbk-00016q-MP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:57:12 -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 RAA04394; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:57:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fRbh-0001BE-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:57:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fRbc-0001BB-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:57:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fRbY-00013Y-QC; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:57:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fRb0-00012j-Rc for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:56:26 -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 RAA04355 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:56:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fRay-0001Ao-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:56:24 -0400 Received: from 82-35-75-59.cable.ubr02.dals.blueyonder.co.uk ([82.35.75.59] helo=DarkLord.Sabahattin-Gucukoglu.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fRan-0001Aa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:56:13 -0400 Received: from Spooler by DarkLord.Sabahattin-Gucukoglu.com (Mercury/32 v3.32) ID MO0000CE; 23 Jul 03 22:55:23 +0100 Received: from spooler by sabahattin-gucukoglu.com (Mercury/32 v3.32); 23 Jul 03 22:54:56 +0100 Received: from aurora (192.168.1.3) by DarkLord.Sabahattin-Gucukoglu.com (Mercury/32 v3.32) with ESMTP ID MG0000CD; 23 Jul 03 22:54:55 +0100 From: "Sabahattin Gucukoglu" Organization: I need more of this! To: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <3F1F1234.14538.1782205@localhost> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.12a) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] Public Informational Response To Peter Kay Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 23 Jul 2003 22:54:44 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT In response to an automated request for me to verify my email address as being that of a human by first clicking a link and then by completing a "Simple" task of recognising the text in a graphic image and then typing the characters into a form on the page thus displayed: Dear Mr. Kay, I, like yourself, despise unsolicited electronic mail. While the principle basis for the measures you are taking to prevent spam from reaching you are bound to provide certain guaranteed results, there are arguably many disadvantages to what you are doing. I am afraid I am the victim of one of them. Being totally blind, I cannot use a graphic to confirm my existence to you. Assistive technology, like a spam robot, can only read the text of your emails and web pages. You might compose another, less biassed technique - ask the user a random question. Perhaps randomly generate a sum in words to which the human must answer - EG: "What's ten plus twenty-five?" Please don't take any of this message in offense, but your email asking me to confirm myself as a human almost went in the analysis folder for much scrutiny and possibly would have had me write a complaint to your ISP; it had the suspicious edge of the classic spam validation procedures and an appropriate amount of oily friendliness, in this case well-meant. A quick few lookups in the DNS, chasing all the MX references, and a further moment's moral consideration in realising that what you were doing was not advertising or anything characteristic of spamming put away these suspicions in favour of amazement. I had never seen anyone actually do this and implement a working system. Does it really do what you want? The email address that triggered this response was ; I wanted to let you know, automatically as it just so happens :-), that your mail contained HTML data - which, alone, represents a pretty accurate measure of spamminess. I am sorry to have inconvenienced you, or other unconcerned or uninterested list members, by writing to you in this way. I regard email as a very valuable means of communication and would surely like to know you and others here as well as possible, if only as a side-effect of our wish to combat the whole problem of spam. Again, my views are not meant in offense. Best wishes, Sabahattin -- Thought for the day: Book (n): a utensil used to pass time while waiting for the TV repairman. Latest PGP Public key? Click: and send that message as is. Sabahattin Gucukoglu Phone: +44 (0)20 7,502-1615 Mobile: +44 (0)7986 053399 http://www.sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/ E-mail or MSN Messenger: _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 23 18:11:38 2003 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 SAA05428 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:11:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fRpI-0001uV-PT for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:11:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6NMBCFB007337 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:11:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fRpI-0001uG-Kg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:11:12 -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 SAA05378; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:11:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fRpF-0001FV-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:11:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fRpA-0001FS-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:11:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fRp7-0001sN-IJ; Wed, 23 Jul 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 19fRp6-0001s5-JE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:11:00 -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 SAA05351 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:10:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fRp3-0001FI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:10:57 -0400 Received: from 000-247-429.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.206.34] helo=68.27.206.34 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fRoq-0001FD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:10:47 -0400 Message-Id: <6.0.0.12.0.20030723180949.02c89788@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.12 (Beta) 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 Subject: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Ease of Use - Accessibility Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 23 Jul 2003 18:09:50 -0400 The current requirments documents has the following item: -----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. -----snip--- A recent list message from a blind person who was unable to pass a Turing test for C/R because of the disability, raises the issues of C/R systems providing accessibility features. This point has been raised before by someone from the W3C in a CNET News.com story. I would like to suggest that the requirement listed above, "Ease of use", include accessibility issues as well. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jul 23 18:48:39 2003 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 SAA06682 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:48:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fSP7-0003zl-O3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:48:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6NMmDqL015351 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:48:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fSP7-0003zW-Kr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:48:13 -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 SAA06677; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:48:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fSP4-0001Tk-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:48:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fSOy-0001Th-00; Wed, 23 Jul 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 19fSOv-0003xi-Hu; Wed, 23 Jul 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 19fSOh-0003xU-Tk for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:47:47 -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 SAA06654 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:47:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fSOe-0001TW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:47:44 -0400 Received: from 000-247-429.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.206.34] helo=68.27.206.34 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fSOR-0001TK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:47:33 -0400 Message-Id: <6.0.0.12.0.20030723184303.02c8d6e0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.12 (Beta) To: "Eric D. Williams" , "asrg@ietf.org" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Must Address Issue of Hijacked Computers In-Reply-To: <01C34ED3.F022E2F0.eric@infobro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 23 Jul 2003 18:47:00 -0400 However if we use the requirements document to evaluate proposals, there are many proposals that are partial - addressing only parts of the system. Some of these proposals would address the issue of hijacked computers specifically. This brings in mind a different issue. The requirements document states: ---------snip----------- 2.10 Single Solution The proposal SHOULD provide a comprehensive solution that impacts the greatest number of problems caused by [spam], and usable or accessible by the greatest number of MTS users. ---------snip----------- There are many "partial" proposals that appear which can be combined to produce something effective. However, how will we deal with such "partial" solutions? Is the requirements document addressing only "single" proposals and if so, what should we do about partial ones? At 03:28 PM 7/20/2003, Eric D. Williams wrote: >Indeed, > >Additionally, the issue of hijacked systems IMHO is in fact at the far >edges or >even outside the realm of system activity which a 'global anti-spam' system >could hope to address. Though methods of introduction of spam into the >MTS is >a serious issue, only if an MTS edge system were required to consult a human >actor before submitting messages could this issue be comprehensively >addressed >(this is a cursory argument on this consideration). If the edge system could >be forced to require this behavior that could be considered a 'feature' and >marketed accordingly, but not a per se 'global anti-spam' solution. > >-e > >On Thursday, July 17, 2003 1:37 PM, Bob Wyman [SMTP:bob@wyman.us] wrote: > > Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > > Should the following be part of the requirements: > > > "Proposals must address issues of hijacked > > > computers used for sending spam." > > No. This should not be a requirement for *all* proposals since > > not all proposals rely on any particular knowledge of source server. On > > the other hand, proposals which rely on knowledge of source servers > > *should* address the issue of hijacked machines. > > Undoubtedly, one of the objectives of research should be to > > determine what, if any, unique problems are introduced by the use of > > hijacked machines. However, the understanding that results from this > > research will only be applicable to a subset of all of the various > > mechanisms that may contribute to a reduction of spam. > > > > bob wyman > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Wed Jul 23 19:53:48 2003 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 TAA08063 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:53:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fTQ7-0006ng-QK for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:53:20 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6NNrJkG026139 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:53:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fTQ7-0006nW-LJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:53:19 -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 TAA08053; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:53:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fTQ5-0001nQ-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:53:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fTQ0-0001nN-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:53:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fTPp-0006ka-Je; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:53:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fTPa-0006kO-Ss for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:52:46 -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 TAA08048 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:52:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fTPY-0001nK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:52:45 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fTPO-0001nH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:52:34 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by imail.centuryc.net (SMTPD32-8.00) id AFEE8740136; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 13:53:18 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:58:18 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] Public Informational Response To Peter Kay X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Public Informational Response To Peter Kay Thread-Index: AcNRZargSO2SiqsgSbyScQ42rp/K+gAD79BA From: "Peter Kay" To: "Sabahattin Gucukoglu" , 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, 23 Jul 2003 13:53:32 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm honored that you took the time to put together that email and I will continue the conversation with you offline. The ASRG is not the place for personal communication. We are planning a future version of our software to accommodate blind email users and I appreciate your input. > -----Original Message----- > From: Sabahattin Gucukoglu [mailto:mail@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com]=20 > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 11:55 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] Public Informational Response To Peter Kay >=20 >=20 > In response to an automated request for me to verify my email=20 > address as=20 > being that of a human by first clicking a link and then by=20 > completing a=20 > "Simple" task of recognising the text in a graphic image and=20 > then typing=20 > the characters into a form on the page thus displayed: >=20 > Dear Mr. Kay, >=20 > I, like yourself, despise unsolicited electronic mail. While the=20 > principle basis for the measures you are taking to prevent spam from=20 > reaching you are bound to provide certain guaranteed results,=20 > there are=20 > arguably many disadvantages to what you are doing. I am=20 > afraid I am the=20 > victim of one of them. Being totally blind, I cannot use a=20 > graphic to=20 > confirm my existence to you. Assistive technology, like a=20 > spam robot, can=20 > only read the text of your emails and web pages. You might compose=20 > another, less biassed technique - ask the user a random=20 > question. Perhaps=20 > randomly generate a sum in words to which the human must answer - EG:=20 > "What's ten plus twenty-five?" >=20 > Please don't take any of this message in offense, but your=20 > email asking me=20 > to confirm myself as a human almost went in the analysis=20 > folder for much=20 > scrutiny and possibly would have had me write a complaint to=20 > your ISP; it=20 > had the suspicious edge of the classic spam validation=20 > procedures and an=20 > appropriate amount of oily friendliness, in this case=20 > well-meant. A quick=20 > few lookups in the DNS, chasing all the MX references, and a further=20 > moment's moral consideration in realising that what you were=20 > doing was not=20 > advertising or anything characteristic of spamming put away these=20 > suspicions in favour of amazement. I had never seen anyone=20 > actually do=20 > this and implement a working system. Does it really do what you want? >=20 > The email address that triggered this response was=20 > ; I wanted to let you=20 > know, automatically as it just so=20 > happens :-), that your mail contained HTML data - which,=20 > alone, represents=20 > a pretty accurate measure of spamminess. >=20 > I am sorry to have inconvenienced you, or other unconcerned or=20 > uninterested list members, by writing to you in this way. I=20 > regard email=20 > as a very valuable means of communication and would surely=20 > like to know=20 > you and others here as well as possible, if only as a=20 > side-effect of our=20 > wish to combat the whole problem of spam. Again, my views=20 > are not meant=20 > in offense. >=20 > Best wishes, > Sabahattin >=20 > --=20 >=20 > Thought for the day: > Book (n): a utensil used to pass time while waiting > for the TV repairman. >=20 > Latest PGP Public key? Click:=20 > > and send that=20 > message as is. >=20 > Sabahattin Gucukoglu > Phone: +44 (0)20 7,502-1615 > Mobile: +44 (0)7986 053399 > http://www.sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/ > E-mail or MSN Messenger: >=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 Jul 24 04:32:03 2003 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 EAA28934 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:32:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fbVf-0004ge-9J for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:31:37 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6O8VZZ3018015 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:31:35 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fbVf-0004gU-5Y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:31:35 -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 EAA28929; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:31:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fbVc-0004Kw-00; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:31:32 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fbVW-0004Km-00; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:31:26 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fbUB-0004S9-BZ; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:30:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fbTB-0004PF-OK for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:29:01 -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 EAA28800 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:28:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fbT8-0004Jg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:28:58 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fbSx-0004JV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:28:48 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:27:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:14:55 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Must Address Issue of Hijacked Compu ters 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: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:14:44 -0400 > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > > ---------snip----------- > 2.10 Single Solution > > The proposal SHOULD provide a comprehensive solution that > impacts the greatest number of problems caused by [spam], and > usable or accessible by the greatest number of MTS users. > ---------snip----------- > > There are many "partial" proposals that appear which can be > combined to > produce something effective. However, how will we deal with > such "partial" > solutions? Is the requirements document addressing only > "single" proposals > and if so, what should we do about partial ones? This is one piece in the current draft of the requirements that needs to be changed. Systems focused on controlling certain portions of the spam problem are more likely than a comprehensive proposal. The charter states that the ASRG will investigate "a framework that allows different systems to be plugged in to provide different pieces of the solution." This is very central to the consent framework that we have been discussing. A well-presented system states some well-defined scope. The evaluation allows us to understand how well it achieves its specific goals and then understand how it fits in the overall framework alongside other solutions. I provided this as feedback directly to the authors off-list in May. To get others' opinion on my feedback and to spark continued discussion of the current draft of the req's doc, I'll forward to the list the emails that I sent off-list in May and June. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 24 17:56:00 2003 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 RAA02552 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:56:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fo3j-0000FO-MA for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:55:35 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6OLtZTO000943 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:55:35 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fo3j-0000F6-Df for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:55:35 -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 RAA02525; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:55:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fo3g-0002eM-00; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:55:32 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fo3a-0002dd-00; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:55:26 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fo0I-0008Lh-3Y; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:52:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fo0A-0008LO-3w for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:51:54 -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 RAA02416 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:51:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fo07-0002d0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:51:51 -0400 Received: from 000-235-094.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.157.145] helo=68.27.157.145) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fnzr-0002ci-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:51:40 -0400 Message-Id: <6.0.0.12.0.20030724175050.02cfeed0@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.12 (Beta) 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 Subject: [Asrg] 0. Proposals - News Article - Anti-spam Registry Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 24 Jul 2003 17:50:52 -0400 A recent ComputerWorld article (http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/software/groupware/story/0,10801,83367,00.html) claims that majority of users (74%) support the idea of an anti-spam registry similar to the do-not-call list currently administered by the FTC. The merits and detriments of such approach have been discussed on the list many times before, but it is interesting to see such high statistic of approval of the idea. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 24 18:08:13 2003 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 SAA03378 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:08:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19foFY-0001F1-P6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:07:48 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6OM7mqo004765 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:07:48 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19foFY-0001Dr-Kh for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:07:48 -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 SAA03302; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:07:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19foFS-0002kl-00; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:07:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19foFN-0002ki-00; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:07:37 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19foEm-0000rq-K6; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:07:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19foDt-0000qw-Kk for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:06:05 -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 SAA03129 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:05:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19foDq-0002k4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:06:02 -0400 Received: from mxsmta02.inithost.com ([209.235.30.104] helo=mxsmta02.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19foDf-0002k0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:05:52 -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 <20030724220317.UFVU23332.mxsmta02.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:03:17 -0400 Message-ID: <3F20582F.7070501@garbagedump.com> From: C Wegrzyn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030723 Thunderbird/0.1a X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yakov Shafranovich CC: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. Proposals - News Article - Anti-spam Registry References: <6.0.0.12.0.20030724175050.02cfeed0@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.12.0.20030724175050.02cfeed0@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, 24 Jul 2003 18:05:35 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov, it shouldn't be a surprise that people hate spam. I wonder what the other 26% wanted. Chuck Wegrzyn Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > A recent ComputerWorld article > (http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/software/groupware/story/0,10801,83367,00.html) > claims that majority of users (74%) support the idea of an anti-spam > registry similar to the do-not-call list currently administered by the FTC. > > The merits and detriments of such approach have been discussed on the > list many times before, but it is interesting to see such high statistic > of approval of the idea. > > 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 Fri Jul 25 19:40:02 2003 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 TAA02013 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:40:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gC9v-0000HD-BB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:39:35 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6PNdZQQ001059 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:39:35 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gC9v-0000H0-5B for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:39:35 -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 TAA01997; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:39:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gC9t-0006g2-00; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:39:33 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gC9s-0006fy-00; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:39:32 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gC8Q-0000CR-7W; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:38:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gC7p-0008SR-2w for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:37:25 -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 TAA01921 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:37:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gC7n-0006dq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:37:23 -0400 Received: from p67-39.acedsl.com ([66.114.67.39] helo=66.114.67.39) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gC7l-0006dD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:37:22 -0400 Message-Id: <6.0.0.12.0.20030725192540.02d65058@pop.pocketmail.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.12 (Beta) 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 Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Call for Volunteers Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 25 Jul 2003 19:28:22 -0400 Dear Group Members, The group currently has a shortage of volunteers to take care of various tasks. A lot of items on the research agenda (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg_research_agenda.htm) need people to take care of them. If you would like to contribute some of you time please let the group know on the list, or email the chair off-list. Any time and help you can give would be great. Yakov P.S. Any other suggestions for the group would be appreciated, please either post them to the list or email the chair off-list. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jul 26 00:40:44 2003 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 AAA11461 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:40:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gGqw-00058N-Th for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:40:19 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6Q4eIK7019729 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:40:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gGqw-000588-QT for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:40:18 -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 AAA11451; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:40:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gGqu-0002uR-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:40:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gGqt-0002uM-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:40:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gGqf-00055V-So; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:40:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gGpp-00054W-UM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:39:10 -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 AAA11394 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:39:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gGpn-0002t2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:39:07 -0400 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gGpm-0002sm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:39:06 -0400 Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h6Q4gaa12384 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 21:42:36 -0700 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/11) Personal Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <95217787722.20030725213831@brandenburg.com> To: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. Proposals - News Article - Anti-spam Registry In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.12.0.20030724175050.02cfeed0@solidmatrix.com> References: <6.0.0.12.0.20030724175050.02cfeed0@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, 25 Jul 2003 21:38:31 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit YS> it is interesting to see such high statistic of approval of the YS> idea. The statistic is being cited by someone who wants the statistic to be high. Hence, they will look for a statistic that is high. The methodology for acquiring the data says "web survey". This probably means that there was a web page soliciting comments. This is a highly biased sampling technique. It means that people with higher motivations will offer their opinions. In this case, higher motivations come from high frustration. Hence, the people who will respond will be the people who want action taken. Any action. We could probably get a statistic showing that most people approve the idea of world peace. Unfortunately, that won't affect the practicality of any schemes for world peace. A registry might have some utility. The real problems are getting the administrative details right -- as the article points out -- and getting our expectations right. If we have sufficiently limited expectations for the effect of the registry, we might be happy with it. 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 Sat Jul 26 02:41:17 2003 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 CAA26574 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:41:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gIjb-0003IO-7h for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:40:51 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6Q6epPN012664 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:40:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gIja-0003IB-SB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:40:50 -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 CAA26549; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:40:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gIjW-00041k-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:40:46 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gIjV-00041h-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:40:45 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gIio-0003CL-6v; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:40:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gIiD-00039W-9o for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:39:25 -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 CAA26541 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:39:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gIi9-00041N-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:39:21 -0400 Received: from h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com ([24.60.130.37] helo=frankston.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gIi8-00041K-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:39:20 -0400 Received: from rmf19 ([192.55.226.102]) by frankston.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.2600.1106); Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:39:19 -0400 From: To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00DE_01C3531F.1D627830" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5329 Thread-Index: AcNTLbU+Tq1EyGP+QcyzoY19qpJOtgAAVSugAAP28PA= X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jul 2003 06:39:20.0234 (UTC) FILETIME=[A4AD50A0:01C35340] Subject: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 26 Jul 2003 02:39:19 -0400 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00DE_01C3531F.1D627830 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I found this in my SMTP log The IP address you are using to connect to AOL is a dynamic, IP address. AOL will not accept future e-mail transactions, I've only been skimming this list (5000 messages are a lot to catch up on. But this action by AOL is like prohibiting free speech to save it. Killing email by going back to the PTT model is effectively opting out of the Internet. I say a little more about this at http://www.frankston.com/?name=AolVsInternet. I'm going to be posting some general comments about the Internet in the next week and one point I will make is that the static IP address is a legacy and must be deprecated. It's just like using the Ethernet MAC address or the circuit ID in a phone network. It is (and should be) a routing identifier. We need simple handles for maintaining relationships. Unfortunately the .COM madness has confused the issue. . Bob Frankston rmf19@bobf.frankston.com http://www.frankston.com http://www.satn.org ------=_NextPart_000_00DE_01C3531F.1D627830 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I found this in my SMTP = log

 

The IP address you are using to connect to AOL is a dynamic,

IP address.  AOL will not accept future e-mail transactions,

 

I’ve only been skimming this list (5000 = messages are a lot to catch up on. But this action by AOL is like prohibiting free speech to save it. Killing email by going back = to the PTT model is effectively opting out of the Internet. I say a little more = about this at http://www.franks= ton.com/?name=3DAolVsInternet.

 

I’m going to be posting some general comments = about the Internet in the next week and one point I will make is that the = static IP address is a legacy and must be deprecated. It’s just like using = the Ethernet MAC address or the = circuit ID in a phone network. It is (and should be) a routing identifier. We need = simple handles for maintaining relationships. Unfortunately the .COM madness = has confused the issue.

.

 

Bob = Frankston

rmf19@bobf.frankston.com

http://www.frankston.com

http://www.satn.org

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_00DE_01C3531F.1D627830-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jul 26 07:36:03 2003 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 HAA04115 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:36:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gNKq-00006X-Db for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:35:36 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6QBZaH4000400 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:35:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gNKq-00006N-9s for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:35:36 -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 HAA04100; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:35:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gNKp-0007Vx-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:35:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gNKo-0007Vu-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:35:34 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gNKI-0008Uy-4x; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:35:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gNJy-0008U5-8a for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:34:42 -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 HAA04082 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:34:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gNJx-0007V7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:34:41 -0400 Received: from mail1.nber.org ([207.113.108.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gNJw-0007V4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:34:40 -0400 Received: from mail1 (root@localhost) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id h6QBYdjW007678 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:34:40 -0400 Received: from nber5.nber.org (nber5.nber.org [207.113.108.99]) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6QBYdQx007662 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:34:39 -0400 From: Daniel Feenberg To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 26 Jul 2003 07:31:44 -0400 (EDT) Use your ISPs mail server as a smart host and get over it. If users can't have the help of their ISP to deter spam, they will be greatly disadvantaged in the fight against it. The "consent model" model means you need the consent of the user to send them mail. They need to be free to have help making the decision to accept mail, from their ISP or others. Merely delegating responsibility to another is not a loss of freedom, for them, or for you. Since the IP address of the connecting host is the only non-forgable identity information the receiving ISP has, they are not likely to accept mail from dynamic addresses if they want to supress spam at all (other than content examination). It isn't overly restrictive to ask you to send your mail through a mail server with a permanent IP address. To retain subscribers AOL needs to do its users will seek out ISP that do better. That is the users protection from AOL misbehavior. If AOL is prohibited from acting on the user's behalf, few users have the wherewithall to handle this themselves. There is no concept of freedom anywhere in the world (except for inside spammers brains) that requires users to accept mail from you or anyone else. You may send such mail as you like. Receipients choose, directly or through agents, what to accept. You need to accept that and move on. If your own ISP won't accept your mail, then you are certainly a spammer and need to reform. If your mail is too confidential to trust to your ISPs server, you are being silly. Daniel Feenberg feenberg isat nber dotte org On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 asrg@bobf.frankston.com wrote: > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > > I found this in my SMTP log > > > > The IP address you are using to connect to AOL is a dynamic, > > IP address. AOL will not accept future e-mail transactions, > > I've only been skimming this list (5000 messages are a lot to catch up > on. But this action by AOL is like prohibiting free speech to save it. > Killing email by going back to the PTT model is effectively opting out > of the Internet. I say a little more about this at > http://www.frankston.com/?name=AolVsInternet. > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jul 26 07:53:48 2003 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 HAA04419 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:53:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gNbz-0000ub-I6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:53:20 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6QBrJ8S003499 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:53:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gNbz-0000uM-Ev for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:53:19 -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 HAA04399; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:53:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gNby-0007dz-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:53:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gNby-0007dw-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:53:18 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gNbg-0000rD-Kl; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:53:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gNb1-0000qR-4h for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:52:19 -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 HAA04367 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:52:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gNb0-0007dP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:52:18 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gNaz-0007dG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:52:17 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19gNat-0001HW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:52:11 +0100 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? (fwd) To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.7.0] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 82.69.7.27 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, 26 Jul 2003 12:52:11 +0100 If your mail is too confidential to trust to your > ISPs server [...] You should encrypt it. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jul 26 12:38:00 2003 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 MAA12762 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:38:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gS35-0004IJ-BF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:37:35 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6QGbZ2F016501 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:37:35 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gS35-0004I4-4X for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:37:35 -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 MAA12756; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:37:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gS33-0003Tl-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:37:33 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gS32-0003Ti-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:37:32 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gS2X-000422-8E; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:37:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gS1s-00041R-Kl for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:36:20 -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 MAA12747 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:36:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gS1r-0003Te-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:36:19 -0400 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gS1q-0003TY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:36:18 -0400 Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h6QGdma06260 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 09:39:48 -0700 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/11) Personal Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1568896141.20030726093542@brandenburg.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? (fwd) 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: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 09:35:42 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, DF> Use your ISPs mail server as a smart host and get over it. DF> If users can't have the help of their ISP to deter spam, they will be DF> greatly disadvantaged in the fight against it. DF> The "consent model" model means you need the consent of the user to send DF> them mail. They need to be free to have help making the decision to accept DF> mail, from their ISP or others. Merely delegating responsibility to DF> another is not a loss of freedom, for them, or for you. The phrase "kill it, to save it" has more relevance to this line of thinking than people seem to realize. So is the word "Procrustean". The model being pursued might work adequately for some styles of human interaction, but it will not work for others. The average consumer's email use is with a stable, limited number of people. For that sort of scenario, the considerable delay and hassle of prior-consent might be ok. However many people have a highly dynamic range of contacts and they have highly variable connectivity. And the role of spontaneous contact is an integral part of many human activities. Requiring prior consent essentially kills all of these. And, by the way, requiring that everything be done through one's "ISP" presumes that that is both feasible and acceptably convenient. It often isn't. Mobility, multiple providers, multiple platforms, etc., cause simplistic service models fail miserably. 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 Sat Jul 26 14:27:25 2003 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 OAA14584 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:27:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gTkw-0008KF-GQ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:26:59 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6QIQwsD031999 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:26:58 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gTkw-0008K2-DW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:26:58 -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 OAA14570; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:26:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gTkt-00043i-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:26:55 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gTkt-00043f-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:26:55 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gTk2-0008G7-8p; Sat, 26 Jul 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 19gTjE-0008DD-6W for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 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 OAA14560 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:25:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gTjB-00043K-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:25:09 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.198.35]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gTjA-00043B-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:25:09 -0400 Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[24.60.130.37](untrusted sender)) by attbi.com (rwcrmhc11) with SMTP id <2003072618243801300na8j8e>; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:24:38 +0000 From: To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? Keywords: asrg MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5329 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Thread-Index: AcNTaP/PmpzjoaujQ4q3HnWbD+ZCNgAJH5Mw 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: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:24:38 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The responses I got (only 2) remind me of the concept that free speech is only allowed as long as you don't abuse it. For this list I must point translate this phrase to point out that restricting free speech to what is allowed ain't no free speech. It's heartening to see the reaction in Hong Kong to the attempts to make sure they don't get too much freedom. I don't really think I need to respond to the suggestions that we should limit email to approved messages via approved channels containing approved content but might as well make a futile attempt. But I realize this is a religious war between those who know good from bad as absolutes and those who don't see them as invariants. Static IP addresses are bug. But putting that aside, Requiring me to only send mail through approved channels is like requiring that I ask permission to use free speech and file with all the authorities so I can be punished for saying the wrong things. Telling me what path I'm allowed to use is not just restrictive, it's not the Internet! But if you believe they can't be forged, you're setting yourself up for a disaster. To respond to another letter I don't need, I don't want an ISP and I must not be required to have an ISP any more than I must not be required to send my phone calls over the legacy PSTN for no purpose other than creating a billable entity out of nothing - I just want to have my packets find a path. If I'm driving down the road I'll use whatever access point is available. I can't use an ISP that requires my packets follow a physical path any more than I can be assured my water molecules will not go the wrong way through the ocean. As to no HTML -- that only applies to lists of people who eschew expressive typography. But it will help reduce spam as will other measures that reduce the expressive power of language This is reminiscent of the efforts to prove programs correct by so reducing the expressive power of the programming languages as to render the program inscrutable to humans but at least you could use a mechanical procedure to demonstrate the equivalence between two inscrutable strings of characters. We can kill email and its expressive power in order to save it. -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Feenberg [mailto:feenberg@nber.org] Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 07:25 To: asrg@bobf.frankston.com; asgf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? Use your ISPs mail server and get over it. If users can't have the help of their ISP to deter spam, they will be greatly disadvantaged in the fight against it. The "consent model" model means you need the consent of the user to send them mail. They need to be free to have help making the decision to accept mail, from their ISP or others. Merely delegating responsibility to another is not a loss of freedom, for them, or for you. Since the IP address of the connecting host is the only non-forgable identity information the receiving ISP has, they are not likely to accept mail from dynamic addresses if they want to supress spam at all (other than content examination). It isn't overly restrictive to ask you to send your mail through a mail server with a permanent IP address. To retain subscribers AOL needs to do its users will seek out ISP that do better. That is the users protection from AOL misbehavior. If AOL is prohibited from acting on the user's behalf, few users have the wherewithall to handle this themselves. There is no concept of freedom anywhere in the world (except for inside spammers brains) that requires users to accept mail from you or anyone else. You may send such mail as you like. Receipients choose, directly or through agents, what to accept. You need to accept that and move on. You also need to stop posting HTML to mailing lists. On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 asrg@bobf.frankston.com wrote: > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > > I found this in my SMTP log > > > > The IP address you are using to connect to AOL is a dynamic, > > IP address. AOL will not accept future e-mail transactions, > > I've only been skimming this list (5000 messages are a lot to catch up > on. But this action by AOL is like prohibiting free speech to save it. > Killing email by going back to the PTT model is effectively opting out > of the Internet. I say a little more about this at > http://www.frankston.com/?name=AolVsInternet. > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jul 26 15:19:25 2003 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 PAA16641 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:19:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gUZG-00025s-LV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:18:58 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6QJIwNl008042 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:18:58 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gUZG-00025d-Fb for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:18:58 -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 PAA16636; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:18:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gUZF-0004Te-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:18:57 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gUZE-0004Tb-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:18:56 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gUYK-00020r-S5; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:18:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gUYD-00020Z-Rn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:17:53 -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 PAA16607 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:17:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gUYC-0004T0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:17:52 -0400 Received: from tarbolton.demon.co.uk ([212.229.119.215] helo=killerbees.co.uk) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gUYB-0004Sk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:17:52 -0400 Received: from mailtest ([192.168.0.2]) by killerbees.co.uk (JAMES SMTP Server 3.0a1) with SMTP ID 675 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 19:32:36 +0100 (BST) From: "Danny Angus" To: "Asrg@Ietf. Org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? 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 (9.0.2910.0) 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: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 20:21:17 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >I found this in my SMTP log >The IP address you are using to connect to AOL is a dynamic, >IP address. AOL will not accept future e-mail transactions, Get a fixed IP. Apart from that, its not the only criteria set by AOL, Yahoo and Hotmail. Between they have some pretty arbitrary rules. On the other hand they are having to cope with massive amounts of abuse, look at the quantity of spam originating from Yahoo for instance. d. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jul 26 15:27:21 2003 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 PAA16730 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:27:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gUgx-0002My-07 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:26:55 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6QJQsKF009109 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:26:54 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gUgw-0002Mq-RV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:26:54 -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 PAA16718; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:26:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gUgv-0004Wa-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:26:53 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gUgu-0004WX-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:26:52 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gUg5-0002FW-7A; Sat, 26 Jul 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 19gUfj-0002FG-AB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:25:39 -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 PAA16705 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:25:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gUfi-0004Vy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:25:38 -0400 Received: from tarbolton.demon.co.uk ([212.229.119.215] helo=killerbees.co.uk) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gUfg-0004Vm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:25:37 -0400 Received: from mailtest ([192.168.0.2]) by killerbees.co.uk (JAMES SMTP Server 3.0a1) with SMTP ID 311 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 19:40:21 +0100 (BST) From: "Danny Angus" To: "Asrg@Ietf. Org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? 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 (9.0.2910.0) 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: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 20:29:03 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit For instance... AOL also rejects mail from hosts which don't reject relay probes immediately with a 5xx error. This unfortunately impacts on legitmate mail servers and gateways which are blackholes for spam,(they benefit from this by not revealing to address harvesters what are and aren't valid local addresses). For the record every public relay testing service I've ever seen is more sophisticated than this, and won't blacklist a host until the probe is actually received. d. > -----Original Message----- > From: Danny Angus [mailto:danny@apache.org] > Sent: 26 July 2003 20:21 > To: Asrg@Ietf. Org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? > > > > >I found this in my SMTP log > > >The IP address you are using to connect to AOL is a dynamic, > >IP address. AOL will not accept future e-mail transactions, > > > Get a fixed IP. > > Apart from that, its not the only criteria set by AOL, Yahoo and > Hotmail. Between they have some pretty arbitrary rules. > On the other hand they are having to cope with massive amounts of > abuse, look at the quantity of spam originating from Yahoo for instance. > > d. > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jul 26 15:49:25 2003 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 PAA17114 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:49:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gV2I-0003I2-F7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:48:59 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6QJmw7U012640 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:48:58 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gV2I-0003Hn-73 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:48:58 -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 PAA17094; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:48:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gV2G-0004fv-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:48:56 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gV2F-0004fs-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:48:55 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gV1M-0003CZ-Vo; Sat, 26 Jul 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 19gV0w-0003Bu-E9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:47:34 -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 PAA17073 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:47:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gV0v-0004fI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:47:33 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.198.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gV0u-0004f8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:47:32 -0400 Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[24.60.130.37](untrusted sender)) by attbi.com (rwcrmhc13) with SMTP id <2003072619465901500o842fe>; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 19:47:01 +0000 From: To: "'Daniel Feenberg'" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? Keywords: asrg MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5329 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Thread-Index: AcNTqH/JHe8hJGS6QR6iVhxquBqArwABYMJg 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: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:46:47 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit So, what does that have to do with what I said? -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Feenberg [mailto:feenberg@nber.org] Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 15:03 To: asrg@bobf.frankston.com Subject: RE: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? We don't want to hear from spammers on this list. On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 asrg@bobf.frankston.com wrote: > The responses I got (only 2) remind me of the concept that free speech is > only allowed as long as you don't abuse it. For this list I must point > translate this phrase to point out that restricting free speech to what is > allowed ain't no free speech. It's heartening to see the reaction in Hong > Kong to the attempts to make sure they don't get too much freedom. > > I don't really think I need to respond to the suggestions that we should > limit email to approved messages via approved channels containing approved > content but might as well make a futile attempt. But I realize this is a > religious war between those who know good from bad as absolutes and those > who don't see them as invariants. > > Static IP addresses are bug. But putting that aside, Requiring me to only > send mail through approved channels is like requiring that I ask permission > to use free speech and file with all the authorities so I can be punished > for saying the wrong things. Telling me what path I'm allowed to use is not > just restrictive, it's not the Internet! But if you believe they can't be > forged, you're setting yourself up for a disaster. > > To respond to another letter I don't need, I don't want an ISP and I must > not be required to have an ISP any more than I must not be required to send > my phone calls over the legacy PSTN for no purpose other than creating a > billable entity out of nothing - I just want to have my packets find a path. > If I'm driving down the road I'll use whatever access point is available. I > can't use an ISP that requires my packets follow a physical path any more > than I can be assured my water molecules will not go the wrong way through > the ocean. > > As to no HTML -- that only applies to lists of people who eschew expressive > typography. But it will help reduce spam as will other measures that reduce > the expressive power of language > > This is reminiscent of the efforts to prove programs correct by so reducing > the expressive power of the programming languages as to render the program > inscrutable to humans but at least you could use a mechanical procedure to > demonstrate the equivalence between two inscrutable strings of characters. > > We can kill email and its expressive power in order to save it. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Feenberg [mailto:feenberg@nber.org] > Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 07:25 > To: asrg@bobf.frankston.com; asgf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? > > > Use your ISPs mail server and get over it. > > If users can't have the help of their ISP to deter spam, they will be > greatly disadvantaged in the fight against it. > > The "consent model" model means you need the consent of the user to send > them mail. They need to be free to have help making the decision to accept > mail, from their ISP or others. Merely delegating responsibility to > another is not a loss of freedom, for them, or for you. > > Since the IP address of the connecting host is the only non-forgable > identity information the receiving ISP has, they are not likely to accept > mail from dynamic addresses if they want to supress spam at all (other > than content examination). > > It isn't overly restrictive to ask you to send your mail through a mail > server with a permanent IP address. To retain subscribers AOL needs to do > its users will seek out ISP that do better. That is the users protection > from AOL misbehavior. If AOL is prohibited from acting on the user's > behalf, few users have the wherewithall to handle this themselves. > > There is no concept of freedom anywhere in the world (except for inside > spammers brains) that requires users to accept mail from you or anyone > else. You may send such mail as you like. Receipients choose, directly or > through agents, what to accept. You need to accept that and move on. > > You also need to stop posting HTML to mailing lists. > > On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 asrg@bobf.frankston.com wrote: > > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > > > > > I found this in my SMTP log > > > > > > > > The IP address you are using to connect to AOL is a dynamic, > > > > IP address. AOL will not accept future e-mail transactions, > > > > I've only been skimming this list (5000 messages are a lot to catch up > > on. But this action by AOL is like prohibiting free speech to save it. > > Killing email by going back to the PTT model is effectively opting out > > of the Internet. I say a little more about this at > > http://www.frankston.com/?name=AolVsInternet. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jul 26 18:04:50 2003 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 SAA19417 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:04:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gX9N-0007sm-Uc for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:04:26 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6QM4PIB030294 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:04:25 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gX9N-0007sX-Q1 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:04:25 -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 SAA19367; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:04:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gX9K-0005Zg-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:04:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gX9K-0005Zd-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:04:22 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gX8y-0007pL-Jt; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:04:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gX87-0007oK-0w for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:03:07 -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 SAA19260 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:02:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gX7z-0005ZX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:02:59 -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 19gX7z-0005ZU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:02:59 -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 19gX76-0006AU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:02:04 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? (fwd) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 26 Jul 2003 09:35:42 PDT." <1568896141.20030726093542@brandenburg.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, 26 Jul 2003 18:02:03 -0400 Dave Crocker wrote: > And, by the way, requiring that everything be done through one's "ISP" > presumes that that is both feasible and acceptably convenient. It often > isn't. Why? Pretend I'm an idiot. Are there any documents or practices which you can refer to, to bolster that opinion? I haven't yet seen any related documents posted on ASRG, just arguments that say "it's hard, trust me." > Mobility, multiple providers, multiple platforms, etc., cause > simplistic service models fail miserably. That's a bit of a tautology: "simple models don't model complex systems", but I'm not sure what it has to do with the issue of establishing consent, and it definitely doesn't follow from the previous statement. When I roam cross-country, the ISP I connect to has no problems authenticating my username & password before they allow me to use their network. This means that they can communicate with my home ISP, to get *all* of the information about me which they deem necessary to let me use their network. I fail to see why they can't apply the results of that authentication process to subsequent SMTP transactions which I initiate. All of the information needed to express consent, or to enforce consent, is available to them. But they don't use this information, and I have yet to see an argument as to why it's impractical for them to use this information. That says to me that the problems they're running into are strictly implementation-related. This means that there is a high probability that ASRG can come up with a method of establishing a consent framework which can be implemented, using the existing information in the network. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jul 26 18:15:44 2003 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 SAA20451 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:15:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gXJw-0008V0-3f for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:15:20 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6QMFKpi032663 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:15:20 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gXJv-0008Uk-Uv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:15:19 -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 SAA20405; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:15:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gXJt-0005bq-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:15:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gXJs-0005bn-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:15:16 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gXJd-0008Rj-Jd; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:15:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gXJR-0008RG-76 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:14:49 -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 SAA20354 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:14:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gXJO-0005bJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:14:46 -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 19gXJN-0005bG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:14:45 -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 19gXIV-0006Ag-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:13:51 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:24:38 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: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:13:51 -0400 asrg@bobf.frankston.com wrote: > The responses I got (only 2) remind me of the concept that free speech is > only allowed as long as you don't abuse it. For this list I must point > translate this phrase to point out that restricting free speech to what is > allowed ain't no free speech. Free speech is a totally separate topic from establishing a consent framework for communication. In addition, any idea that "free speech" is some kind of "right" is directly contradictory to establishing a consent framework for communication. That is, if I don't consent to listening to your "free speech", you have NO right to force me to listen to it. So I've allegedly "restricted" your "free speech", but that's *your* problem, not mine. > I don't really think I need to respond to the suggestions that we should > limit email to approved messages via approved channels containing approved > content If "approved" means "consented to by the recipient", then it would appear you're opposed to the charter goals of establishing a consent framework for communication. If "approved" means "some third party to the communication", then I would agree that such approval is contradictory to the charter goals. > Static IP addresses are bug. But putting that aside, Requiring me to only > send mail through approved channels is like requiring that I ask permission > to use free speech and file with all the authorities so I can be punished > for saying the wrong things. Telling me what path I'm allowed to use is not > just restrictive, it's not the Internet! So you don't consent to my declaration that I consent to accepting email only from a whitelist (i.e. particular path). Why does that make me nervous? > To respond to another letter I don't need, I don't want an ISP and I must > not be required to have an ISP any more than I must not be required to send > my phone calls over the legacy PSTN for no purpose other than creating a > billable entity out of nothing - I just want to have my packets find a path. You're stuck on the concept that the only consent is the consent of the sender. If you want the recipient to accept your messages, you MUST establish a mutually agreeable framework: i.e. mutual consent. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jul 26 18:28:50 2003 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 SAA20647 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:28:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gXWX-0000Po-Tr for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:28:26 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6QMSLh4001590 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:28:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gXWX-0000PZ-Ki for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:28:21 -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 SAA20635; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:28:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gXWU-0005eA-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:28:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gXWU-0005e7-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:28:18 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gXWD-0000Mc-8G; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:28:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gXVt-0000MO-OD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:27:41 -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 SAA20632 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:27:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gXVq-0005e3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:27:38 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gXVq-0005e0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:27:38 -0400 Received: from [216.220.248.18] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.0.18]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2579994; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:27:33 -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] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? Cc: 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, 26 Jul 2003 18:14:19 -0400 At 2:24 PM -0400 7/26/03, wrote: >The responses I got (only 2) remind me of the concept that free speech is >only allowed as long as you don't abuse it. For this list I must point >translate this phrase to point out that restricting free speech to what is >allowed ain't no free speech. It's heartening to see the reaction in Hong AOL is not restricting free speech. They are restricting where you can speak from. That's a common practice in realspace as well as cyberspace. I don't know of any ISPs that provide floating IPs and no mail server, perhaps there are some. But fundamentally AOL is saying that if you want to speak to their users, you need to do so from a static location--either yours or your ISPs. I have a hard time of considering that even a step down a slippery slope, let alone a restriction. >Static IP addresses are bug. But putting that aside, Requiring me to only That's a philosophical conclusion. From a technical and historical standpoint it would appear that static IPs would be the norm and dynamic are a side effect of limited IP availability. >To respond to another letter I don't need, I don't want an ISP and I must >not be required to have an ISP any more than I must not be required to send Which is fine, but in that case you'll certainly have a static IP. The problem you are describing is a side effect of what you want to happen with regard to IP addresses, it has very little bearing on current internet usage. AOL's restricting is annoying, but smaller ISPs and companies have been implementing the same restriction for years. Yes, it's lousy, and it's a pain. But it has nothing to do with free speech. -- 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 Jul 26 18:44:46 2003 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 SAA20916 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:44:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gXm2-0001BL-Pj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:44:22 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6QMiMKS004544 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:44:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gXm2-0001BD-KR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:44:22 -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 SAA20903; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:44:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gXlz-0005hx-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:44:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gXlz-0005hu-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:44:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gXlh-00017A-W3; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:44:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gXlb-00016t-Mn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:43:55 -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 SAA20887 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:43:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gXlY-0005hj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:43:52 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gXlY-0005hd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:43:52 -0400 Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[24.60.130.37](untrusted sender)) by attbi.com (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <2003072622432101400an15be>; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 22:43:21 +0000 From: To: "'Kee Hinckley'" , Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? Keywords: asrg MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5329 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Thread-Index: AcNTxR3KicP/04a6SRKDyUZ4r9Kg6wAAQ9hg 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: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:43:19 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I already wrote a long response and don't want to repeat the points and will write about the IP address fallacy in an essay I'm working on. The point about the static IP address is indeed technical -- there is no need for them and they only work in the 1980's static Internet. I do want to emphasize that it is a free speech issue. Arguing that if I were diligent enough I could work around such impediments is not the response any more than "separate but equal" was in the US in 1954. But AOL does have the right to not listen except that they are also purporting to provide their customers with access to the Internet and they are not. AOL does not own its users but because the .Com disaster their users are not really mobile. -----Original Message----- From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:nazgul@somewhere.com] Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 18:14 To: asrg@bobf.frankston.com Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? At 2:24 PM -0400 7/26/03, wrote: >The responses I got (only 2) remind me of the concept that free speech is >only allowed as long as you don't abuse it. For this list I must point >translate this phrase to point out that restricting free speech to what is >allowed ain't no free speech. It's heartening to see the reaction in Hong AOL is not restricting free speech. They are restricting where you can speak from. That's a common practice in realspace as well as cyberspace. I don't know of any ISPs that provide floating IPs and no mail server, perhaps there are some. But fundamentally AOL is saying that if you want to speak to their users, you need to do so from a static location--either yours or your ISPs. I have a hard time of considering that even a step down a slippery slope, let alone a restriction. >Static IP addresses are bug. But putting that aside, Requiring me to only That's a philosophical conclusion. From a technical and historical standpoint it would appear that static IPs would be the norm and dynamic are a side effect of limited IP availability. >To respond to another letter I don't need, I don't want an ISP and I must >not be required to have an ISP any more than I must not be required to send Which is fine, but in that case you'll certainly have a static IP. The problem you are describing is a side effect of what you want to happen with regard to IP addresses, it has very little bearing on current internet usage. AOL's restricting is annoying, but smaller ISPs and companies have been implementing the same restriction for years. Yes, it's lousy, and it's a pain. But it has nothing to do with free speech. -- 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 Jul 26 20:53:16 2003 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 UAA22844 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 20:53:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gZmM-0005QX-3j for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 20:52:50 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6R0qof7020862 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 20:52:50 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gZmL-0005QP-Mv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 20:52:49 -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 UAA22839; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 20:52:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gZmJ-0006RG-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 20:52:47 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gZmI-0006RC-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 20:52:46 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gZlZ-0005N5-2j; Sat, 26 Jul 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 19gZlE-0005Mu-2C for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 20:51:40 -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 UAA22825 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 20:51:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gZlB-0006Qz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 20:51:37 -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 19gZlA-0006Qw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 20:51:36 -0400 Received: from dino ([66.120.64.130]) by magic1.org for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 17:48:51 -0700 Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Scott Nelson Subject: Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 26 Jul 2003 17:52:13 -0700 At 02:39 AM 7/26/03 -0400, asrg@bobf.frankston.com wrote: >I found this in my SMTP log > > > >The IP address you are using to connect to AOL is a dynamic, > >IP address. AOL will not accept future e-mail transactions, > > > >I've only been skimming this list (5000 messages are a lot to catch up on. >But this action by AOL is like prohibiting free speech to save it. Killing >email by going back to the PTT model is effectively opting out of the >Internet. I say a little more about this at >http://www.frankston.com/?name=AolVsInternet. > AOL has the right to refuse to listen to anyone they want. I'll grant that AOL has a stupid policy, but trying to turn that into a free speech issue is a bit over the top. We "restrict" speech all the time - for example, you can't use a bull horn to shout political slogans at 3:00 am in the middle of the suburbs. Personally, I "restrict" email sent to me to that which conforms to the SMTP protocol as specified in RFC821 or RFC2821. Unless you claim we can't stop people from burning messages into other people's eyelids against their will, you have to accept that there are limits to the kind of communication that is permitted. The question is "where do we draw the line", not "do we draw a line at all". Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, and all that. To put it in terms of this group - AOL specifically refuses consent to dynamic IP addresses. They /aren't/ saying you can't send email from a dynamic IP address, they are saying you can't send email from a dynamic IP address /to them/. Far from trying to stop AOL from doing that, the goal of this group as I understand it, is to make it /easier/ for them to do that, and easier for them to explain that they are doing that. Ideally, to make it so simple that even a computer can understand it. In byte-speak; Improving the consent in consensual communication. > > >I'm going to be posting some general comments about the Internet in the next >week and one point I will make is that the static IP address is a legacy and >must be deprecated. It's just like using the Ethernet MAC address or the >circuit ID in a phone network. It is (and should be) a routing identifier. >We need simple handles for maintaining relationships. Unfortunately the .COM >madness has confused the issue. > I agree that AOL is being short sighted by restricting email from dynamic IP addresses. However, opposing their stupid policies is very different from opposing their right to have stupid policies. Seems to me that this group is more about the latter than the former, but I'm certain it's the wrong venue for this sort of discussion. Scott Nelson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jul 26 23:12:21 2003 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 XAA24617 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:12:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gbwc-0001iV-0Q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:11:34 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6R3BXL2006593 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:11:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gbwb-0001iB-Sa for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:11:33 -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 XAA24571; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:11:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gbwX-0007fV-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:11:30 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gbwX-0007fS-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:11:29 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gbw6-0001ey-Hq; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:11:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gbvx-0001eS-VG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:10:54 -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 XAA24536 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:10:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gbvu-0007ec-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:10:50 -0400 Received: from p67-39.acedsl.com ([66.114.67.39] helo=66.114.67.39) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gbvt-0007e3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:10:49 -0400 Message-Id: <6.0.0.12.0.20030726225423.02d1ef28@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.12 (Beta) To: Scott Nelson , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 7. Best Practices - Mail Administrators (Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out?) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 26 Jul 2003 23:07:39 -0400 At 08:52 PM 7/26/2003, Scott Nelson wrote: >At 02:39 AM 7/26/03 -0400, asrg@bobf.frankston.com wrote: > >I found this in my SMTP log > > > >The IP address you are using to connect to AOL is a dynamic, > >IP address. AOL will not accept future e-mail transactions, > > > >I've only been skimming this list (5000 messages are a lot to catch up on. > >But this action by AOL is like prohibiting free speech to save it. Killing > >email by going back to the PTT model is effectively opting out of the > >Internet. I say a little more about this at > >http://www.frankston.com/?name=AolVsInternet. > > As Scott has stated: ...... opposing their stupid policies is very different from opposing their right to have stupid policies. Seems to me that this group is more about the latter than the former, but I'm certain it's the wrong venue for this sort of discussion....... I have to agree with Scott that this is not a proper forum or venue to debate whether AOL itself is correct. HOWEVER, this can be something to be discussed at part of "Best Current Practices" for mail administrators. If any of you are willing to take on the task, please post to the list or email the chair off-list. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jul 26 23:47:46 2003 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 XAA25083 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:47:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gcVF-0002lk-2W for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:47:21 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6R3lLAG010638 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:47:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gcVE-0002lV-Ur for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:47:20 -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 XAA25079; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:47:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gcVC-00003p-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:47:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gcVC-00003m-00; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:47:18 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gcUv-0002iT-EU; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:47:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gcUg-0002hv-LI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:46:46 -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 XAA25073 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:46:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gcUe-00003Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:46:44 -0400 Received: from p67-39.acedsl.com ([66.114.67.39] helo=66.114.67.39) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gcUd-00003L-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:46:44 -0400 Message-Id: <6.0.0.12.0.20030726233418.02cce9e0@pop.pocketmail.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.12 (Beta) 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 Subject: [Asrg] 7. Best Current Practices Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 26 Jul 2003 23:45:26 -0400 There are three items in the agenda under the BCP heading: 7.a. End-users 7.b. Mail administrators. 7.c. Mass Mailers All of these can be actively developed NOW, separate from other efforts in the group. There are also three RFCs listed on the ASRG's website that are BCPs. Perhaps their authors (if they are here), or many others on the group, would be willing to take on the task. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 27 08:53:59 2003 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 IAA14791 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:53:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gl1o-0004EO-BA for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:53:32 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6RCrW1g016265 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:53:32 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gl1o-0004EG-6M for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:53:32 -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 IAA14787; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:53:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gl1m-0003RT-00; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:53:30 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gl1m-0003RQ-00; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:53:30 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gl1J-00048n-BA; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:53:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gl10-00048J-FQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:52:42 -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 IAA14781 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:52:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gl0z-0003Qx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:52:41 -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 19gl0y-0003Qu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:52:40 -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 19gl05-0006Q0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:51:45 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? (fwd) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:43:23 PDT." <2034554116.20030726164323@brandenburg.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, 27 Jul 2003 08:51:44 -0400 Dave Crocker wrote: > AD> When I roam cross-country, > > how about cross-world? I fail to see how the net changes when I roam inter-country, as opposed to intra-country. The authentication & other network protocols I use are the same. In many cases, I use the services of the same global company. The only things which change are local implementations. > how about with a laptop, using pop/smtp, rather than web user interface > to your home email application? > > how about when connected to a remote network, such as a clients? > > Or from a hotel, using your laptop? Any problems with those activities come ONLY from poor or inadequate local implementations. > The problem with requiring prior consent to the delivery of email is not > about users logging in to their email service. Is about senders > "logging in" to recipients, before they can send mail to them. Which is a situation I've never proposed or supported. I have repeatedly said that it's the problem of the local network to verify its users, and to ensure that their behaviour satisfies the local AUP (i.e. consent). It's the problem of the local network to coordinate AUP/consent for any roaming user with that users home domain. It's the problem of the local network to make that consent available to the rest of the net, so that they can use it, if they so desire. The end result is that the "recipient" of an email has to do minimal work, in order to verify consent. The recipient can easily gain enough information about the identity of the sender, in order to make informed decisions as to whether or not to accept the message. In contrast, your position paradoxically requires the very thing you appear to oppose. NOT enforcing local consent, and NOT exposing that consent to the network, means that the recipient MUST perform ALL of the work of authenticating the sender, by applying content filters, white lists, key signing, challenge-response, etc. i.e. The sender must effectively "log in" to the recipient, and satisfy expensive authentication methods. This result is what boggles my mind about the position of "roaming users MUST be able to send messages from anywhere, claiming to be anyone." It's an a priori requirement that the recipient must perform all of the work to establish consent, and the sender must perform no work. So the sender does whateever the heck he wants, and the recipient is forced to deal with it. Where's the "consent framework for communication"? The fact is that current issues related to roaming & consent are largely issues of implementation. The information exists and can be used. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 27 08:57:45 2003 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 IAA14843 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:57:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gl5S-0004My-7y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:57:18 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6RCvIL6016790 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:57:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gl5S-0004Mj-3h for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:57:18 -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 IAA14829; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:57:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gl5Q-0003Th-00; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:57:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gl5P-0003Te-00; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:57:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gl5B-0004J6-BL; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:57:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gl4q-0004Iu-Ay for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:56:40 -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 IAA14826 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:56:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gl4o-0003TH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:56:38 -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 19gl4o-0003TE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:56:38 -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 19gl3v-0006QF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:55:43 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:43:19 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, 27 Jul 2003 08:55:43 -0400 asrg@bobf.frankston.com wrote: > I do want to emphasize that it is a free speech issue. As a Canadian, I see the American understanding of "free speech" as a religious issue, and one which will never be addressed outside of a religious forum. > But AOL does have the right to not listen except that they are also > purporting to provide their customers with access to the Internet > and they are not. And that's a matter of contract between AOL and their customers. If those customers have no choice or alternative, then it's a matter for the local justice system. Either way, it has nothing to do with the net. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 27 11:30:52 2003 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 LAA17968 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:30:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gnTc-0008OK-MQ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:30:25 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6RFUOxE032250 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:30:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gnTc-0008O5-I1 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:30:24 -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 LAA17964; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:30:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gnTb-0004de-00; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:30:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gnTa-0004db-00; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:30:22 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gnTF-0008L6-3O; Sun, 27 Jul 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 19gnSr-0008Ki-9r for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:29:37 -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 LAA17961 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:29:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gnSq-0004dD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:29:36 -0400 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gnSp-0004d4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:29:35 -0400 Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h6RFX7a27291; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:33:07 -0700 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/11) Personal Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <17591289307.20030727082858@brandenburg.com> To: Scott Nelson CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? 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: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:28:58 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Scott, SN> AOL has the right to refuse to listen to anyone they want. SN> I'll grant that AOL has a stupid policy, SN> but trying to turn that into a free speech issue is a bit over the top. Though the reference is emotion-laden, I believe the same claim was made by folks such as restaurants, refusing service to Blacks in the U.S. Eventually it was banned as a valid criterion. Just as there are constraints on "free speech", there on constraints on its suppression, even within the private sector. This is especially important when the private sector entity has considerable market force. (and, no, IANAL.) 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 Sun Jul 27 11:44:46 2003 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 LAA18179 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:44:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gnh5-0000TM-KF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:44:19 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6RFiJlA001812 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:44:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gnh5-0000T9-HS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:44:19 -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 LAA18175; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:44:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gnh4-0004lM-00; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:44:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gnh3-0004lJ-00; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:44:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gngn-0000Q5-J4; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:44:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gng9-0000PO-TA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:43:21 -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 LAA18160 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:43:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gng8-0004kH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:43:20 -0400 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gng8-0004jj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:43:20 -0400 Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h6RFkpa27778; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:46:51 -0700 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/11) Personal Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <13392113912.20030727084243@brandenburg.com> To: "Alan DeKok" CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Your message of "Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:43:23 PDT." <2034554116.20030726164323@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: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:42:43 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alan, AD> I fail to see how the net changes when I roam inter-country, as AD> opposed to intra-country. The authentication & other network AD> protocols I use are the same. In many cases, I use the services of AD> the same global company. In many cases, one can not. This changes the issues for authentication and inter-administration authorization. Different access services employ different rules. Sometimes the rules collide. AD> The only things which change are local implementations. >> how about with a laptop, using pop/smtp, rather than web user interface >> to your home email application? >> how about when connected to a remote network, such as a clients? >> Or from a hotel, using your laptop? AD> Any problems with those activities come ONLY from poor or inadequate AD> local implementations. That is a facile, but not very useful response. First it contains no substantiation of such a dismissal, and second it ignores the realities that users experience. AD> In contrast, your position paradoxically requires the very thing you AD> appear to oppose. NOT enforcing local consent, and NOT exposing that AD> consent to the network, means that the recipient MUST perform ALL of AD> the work of authenticating the sender, by applying content filters, AD> white lists, key signing, challenge-response, etc. My "position" is to pay attention to the vagaries and needs of the real-world, rather than assume that we can operate things simplistically. That sort of "position" tends to work far better for getting viable services that people will actually agree to. AD> i.e. The sender AD> must effectively "log in" to the recipient, and satisfy expensive AD> authentication methods. AD> This result is what boggles my mind about the position of "roaming AD> users MUST be able to send messages from anywhere, claiming to be AD> anyone." The error of this sort of consent model is that it requires global enforcement of network access identification and that it be used to substantiate author identity. This a) ignores a variety of valid ISP business models that do not permit that correlation, b) ignores the fact that identification does not ensure legitimate behavior, and c) identification does not ensure enforceability. 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 Sun Jul 27 14:23:03 2003 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 OAA20828 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:23:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gqAG-0004GK-Gb for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:22:36 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6RIManm016378 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:22:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gqAG-0004G5-Cs for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:22:36 -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 OAA20818; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:22:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gqAD-0006cw-00; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:22:33 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gqAD-0006ct-00; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:22:33 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gq9g-0004Cb-Kc; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:22:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gq8y-0004CG-Tc for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:21:16 -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 OAA20787 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:21:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gq8w-0006bc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:21:14 -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 19gq8v-0006bW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:21:13 -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 19gq7y-0006St-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:20:14 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? (fwd) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:42:43 PDT." <13392113912.20030727084243@brandenburg.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, 27 Jul 2003 14:20:14 -0400 Dave Crocker wrote: > AD> Any problems with those activities come ONLY from poor or inadequate > AD> local implementations. > > That is a facile, but not very useful response. First it contains no > substantiation of such a dismissal ... and as such, reminds me of previous messages in this thread. Still, it's not that difficult to figure out. Someone has issues roaming, but doesn't have issues when not roaming. Is the problem the Internet as a whole? No, that hasn't changed. Is it their local machine? No, that hasn't changed. Is it their home ISP? No, that hasn't changed either. Ergo, it must be the only item in their use of the network which is different: the ISP they're using while roaming. >, and second it ignores the realities that users experience. What realities? I've already addressed the fact that ISP's have broken implementations, and don't communicate or enforce consent. These issues should be addressed. Beyond that, I haven't seen you bring up any additional "realities" that users experience. > My "position" is to pay attention to the vagaries and needs of the real-world, > rather than assume that we can operate things simplistically. You've proven that both of us can come up with facile and not useful responses. So? > The error of this sort of consent model is that it requires global > enforcement of network access identification and that it be used to > substantiate author identity. I'm confused as to whether that's a tautology or a non sequitor. "users roaming globally require global enforcement of identity". Yes, so? How else can they roam globally? There's no requirement to use SSN's or passport #'s as identifiers. Instead, we currently have near-random user names. People can have more than one identity. Look in your wallet, I'll bet you've got 3-4 pieces of plastic, each with a ~10 digit identity. > This a) ignores a variety of valid ISP business models that do not > permit that correlation, There are ISP business models which perform *no* authentication of users on their network? And which make no statement about their consent to behaviours of those users? Which do not make those users accountable for any of their actions? The fight against such ISP's is mainly a legal one: criminal indictments. There's little the net can do to fight them, other than simple disconnection. > b) ignores the fact that identification does not ensure legitimate > behavior, and c) identification does not ensure enforceability. Identification ensures accountability. Accountability ensures that recipients can choose to enforce consent for accountable senders. Senders who are not accountable for their behaviour cannot, by definition, establish a consent framework for communication with a recipient. I think you hit the nail on the head, there. Establishing mutual consent is NOT about ensuring "legitimate" behaviour, and it's NOT about enforcing that behaviour. It's about the sender being able to make statements about his behaviour, and the recipient being able to choose to stop communicating with the sender when his actions don't match his words. As an attempt to reach a common ground, I will state explicitely that a network BCP SHOULD say that ISPs MUST permit their users to exchange or enforce consent. This means exchanging consent with home domains for roaming users, not blocking port 25, or other stupid local "filters" which don't help the spam problem, but which prevent normal network communication. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 27 15:40:53 2003 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 PAA22844 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:40:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19grNa-00061j-5B for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:40:26 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6RJeQce023164 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:40:26 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19grNZ-00061X-TR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:40:25 -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 PAA22837; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:40:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19grNY-0007Dn-00; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:40:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19grNX-0007Dk-00; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:40:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19grNB-0005yF-9e; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:40:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19grMN-0005xX-43 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:39:11 -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 PAA22825 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:39:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19grML-0007Cz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:39:09 -0400 Received: from law12-f36.law12.hotmail.com ([64.4.19.36] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19grML-0007Cd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:39:09 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 12:38:38 -0700 Received: from 12.254.138.252 by lw12fd.law12.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:38:38 GMT X-Originating-IP: [12.254.138.252] X-Originating-Email: [pontifier@hotmail.com] From: "John Fenley" To: aland@freeradius.org, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jul 2003 19:38:38.0943 (UTC) FILETIME=[AD73D6F0:01C35476] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id PAA22826 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 27 Jul 2003 13:38:38 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: "Alan DeKok" >I think you hit the nail on the head, there. Establishing mutual >consent is NOT about ensuring "legitimate" behaviour, and it's NOT >about enforcing that behaviour. It's about the sender being able to >make statements about his behaviour, and the recipient being able to >choose to stop communicating with the sender when his actions don't >match his words. Hey that's a great idea! What if there was a system that could allow that to happen....wish I=92d=20 thought of that. Oh wait... John Fenley www.Choicelist.com _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* =20 http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/junkmail _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 27 16:58:51 2003 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 QAA24175 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:58:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gsb3-0007lX-C9 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:58:25 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6RKwPsN029846 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:58:25 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gsb3-0007lJ-85 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:58:25 -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 QAA24171; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:58:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gsb1-0007fT-00; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:58:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gsb0-0007fQ-00; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:58:22 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gsaf-0007iH-37; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:58:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gsa5-0007hT-Gp for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:57:25 -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 QAA24168 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:57:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gsa3-0007fM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:57:23 -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 19gsa2-0007fI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:57:22 -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 19gsZ3-0006Vp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:56:21 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? (fwd) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:49:49 PDT." <83103339844.20030727114949@brandenburg.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, 27 Jul 2003 16:56:20 -0400 Dave Crocker wrote: > Someone has issues when sending HMTL-encoded email, but no issues when > sending ASCII-based email. Hence, let's eliminate all multi-font, > formatted email. I don't recall ever supporting such a position. I think it would be stupid to ban HTML email for that reason (though I hate it, myself). > Or perhaps we are looking at secondary issues that have some near-term > correlation but a) will not be effective very long or at all, and b) > have very nasty collateral damage, such as restricting basic, legitimate > human use and communication choices. The issue that ISP's are doing stupid things, and are refusing to allow senders to communicate consent is an issue solely for a BCP document on good network behaviour. This is where I think our main conflict is: You're focussed on the concept that some stupid ISP's don't allow the exchange or enforcement of consent. I agree that's a problem, but I don't see how a solution to that problem would ever involve the rest of the net (other than as BCP). It's a matter between the ISP and the customer. And I don't see how it affects ASRG, other than that any proposals should make a statement about "stupid, but common, ISP behaviour X will interfere negatively with the implementation or use of this proposal." It's just one more item to take into account when comparing solutions. Cost, design, implementation, roll-out time, and common practices are all part of the analysis of any proposal. > We need to be rather less cavalier about dismissing these > "side-effects". I have never once proposed any of these restrictions. Instead, I have consistently opposed them. So I'm at a loss for why you're implying I (or anyone) is "cavalier" about dismissing these "side-effects". > The nature of all this support for login-based access control is the > believe that it will, somehow, reduce spam. It will reduce some kinds, > perhaps, but it will have no effect overall. Then I'm sorry, but you have totally misunderstood my position. At no time have I ever suggested that login-based access control will reduce spam. It won't. What I *have* suggested, repeatedly, is that ISP's have information currently available to them about their users, which will allow them to better express or exchange consent with other users on the net. Many ISP's do not currently use this information. e.g. Blocking outbound traffic on port 25, rather than exchanging and enforcing consentual use of that port. We're here to *fix* those broken consent systems. > As I said, it involves different administrations. You were nicely > citing use of a single ISP globally. That's fine for you, but not a > reasonable requirement to enforce on everyone who roams. Then you misunderstood my message. The statement that I SOMETIMES use the services of a global company doesn't mean that I ALWAYS use those services, or that I believe it's a requirement for EVERYONE to use those services. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 27 20:04:18 2003 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 UAA29558 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:04:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gvUO-0004fy-Qb for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:03:50 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6S03i95017970 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:03:44 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gvUO-0004fl-Nk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:03:44 -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 UAA29538; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:03:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gvUM-0001S6-00; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:03:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gvUL-0001S0-00; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:03:41 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gvTg-0004c1-Py; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:03:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gvTU-0004bq-OU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:02:48 -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 UAA29504 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:02:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gvTS-0001Rb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:02:46 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.198.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gvTR-0001RE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:02:45 -0400 Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[24.60.130.37](untrusted sender)) by attbi.com (rwcrmhc13) with SMTP id <2003072800015601500o5lale>; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:02:10 +0000 From: To: "'Kee Hinckley'" , Cc: "Dave Crocker" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? Keywords: asrg MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5329 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Thread-Index: AcNUTS2NRYl6rzZRTemI4oYrqX3y7wATFqJw 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: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:01:53 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I won't belabor the free speech issues since they tend towards the religious and I can't respond in a short discussion. Protocol and code can constrict us and Lessig does indeed warn us against the danger of accepting the implicit restrictions and policies built into such mechanisms. This is a case in point. What I will respond to is your statement that I am somehow going through a lot of extra work to sneak past my ISP. That is offensive and utterly wrong. My ISP is whimsical and changes the email addresses of its millions of subscribers whenever it decides to -- continental cablevision ==> Mediaone ==> JoesDryCleaningAndInternetService => ATTBI => Comcast. They also have problematic policies when I want to send email other than via their approved wires and I accidentally connect via my neighbor's access point or through the wrong path on my Dual WAN they just won't deal with me. The whole point of the Internet is to avoid being at the mercy of benevolence of those that demand to do me good. If it is illegal to implement my own services then the Internet is a criminal activity. So be it. If AOL chooses to fight the Internet then I feel I have a responsibility to limit the damage they do. If you choose to make it hard for me to send mail to you and you want mail from me then it's in your interest for me have the incentive to cater to your rules. -----Original Message----- From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:nazgul@somewhere.com] Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 10:38 To: asrg@bobf.frankston.com Subject: RE: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? At 6:43 PM -0400 7/26/03, wrote: >I do want to emphasize that it is a free speech issue. Arguing that if I >were diligent enough I could work around such impediments is not the The fact of the matter is that you did extra work to *not* use your ISP's mail server. And you probably do extra work to run a server in a dynamic IP environment (and the very act of running such server may well violate your ISP's terms of service). AOL also requires that incoming mail not look like spam and not contain words that they consider spam-related. Presumably you've avoided doing that, despite the fact that it violates your speech. Some ISPs require that your IP address resolve to something before they accept your email. That requires you to do extra work as well. As Lessig has pointed out quite well, protocol defines law on the internet. The current protocol, with no "added" restrictions, also restricts your ability of free speech. AOL's "new" restriction is no different than any other SMTP check of the sender. *Any* change to a protocol can be seen as a restriction of speech, because by definition a protocol defines how you may speak. So in a sense, I agree. The internet restricts your speech, and anti-spam measures do so more. Then the question becomes whether a particular protocol change is particularly restrictive. I think the answer in this case is clear. AOL's restriction does not keep anyone from communicating with AOL users, nor does it require users to do anything additional to communicate with AOL users. All it requires is that some people who *did* do something additional, now need to undo it or find a different ISP. >provide their customers with access to the Internet and they are not. AOL >does not own its users but because the .Com disaster their users are not >really mobile. They are perfectly mobile, there are plenty of other ISPs. What there aren't (and have been before, during or since the .com peak) or other ISPs who will hold their hand as thoroughly as AOL. Their own reluctance or inability to learn to use their machines keeps them in AOL's gated community. There are lots of users like that (yesterday we lost a potential customer because they could figure out how to follow instructions on changing two fields in their Outlook configuration to use our service... we see lots of them). AOL users are users who have specifically decided to give up freedoms in exchange for security. What's scary is that there are so many people who believe that's a good trade-off. -- 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 Jul 27 20:37:54 2003 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 UAA00377 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:37:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gw0x-0005md-7M for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:37:27 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6S0bNeN022225 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:37:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gw0x-0005mO-2y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:37:23 -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 UAA00373; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:37:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gw0u-0001oL-00; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:37:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gw0u-0001oI-00; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:37:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gw0b-0005ZU-6k; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:37:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gw0K-0005Yq-HH for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:36:44 -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 UAA00351 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gw0I-0001nZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:36:42 -0400 Received: from p67-39.acedsl.com ([66.114.67.39] helo=66.114.67.39) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gw0H-0001nM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:36:41 -0400 Message-Id: <6.0.0.12.0.20030727202947.02d80df0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.12 (Beta) To: , "'Kee Hinckley'" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 7b. Best Practices - Mail Administrators (was RE: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out?) Cc: "Dave Crocker" , In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 27 Jul 2003 20:35:56 -0400 At 08:01 PM 7/27/2003, asrg@bobf.frankston.com wrote: >....... >What I will respond to is your statement that I am somehow going through a >lot of extra work to sneak past my ISP. That is offensive and utterly wrong. >My ISP is whimsical and changes the email addresses of its millions of >subscribers whenever it decides to -- continental cablevision ==> Mediaone >==> JoesDryCleaningAndInternetService => ATTBI => Comcast. They also have >problematic policies when I want to send email other than via their approved >wires and I accidentally connect via my neighbor's access point or through >the wrong path on my Dual WAN they just won't deal with me. The whole point >of the Internet is to avoid being at the mercy of benevolence of those that >demand to do me good. >....... Quote from this reply: .......THEY ALSO HAVE PROBLEMATIC POLICIES..... This is something that the ASRG can address by developing BCPs that then can be promoted to the rest of the Net. There isn't much else we can do beside that aside from taking these issues into account when evaluating solutions. I believe that was already addressed in the "Technical Considerations" document, section 4.2, "Burden": "Effective mechanisms must place some kind of burden on senders and receivers. Hence a challenge for spam control mechanisms is to require enough of a burden to be effective, but not so much that it makes email unacceptably painful to use." Within the consent framework, I have to agree with others that the ISPs should allow users to exchange consent information. This would also be part of a BCP. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 27 21:19:59 2003 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 VAA01030 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:19:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gwfk-0006lp-Hv for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:19:33 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6S1JW9n026019 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:19:32 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gwfk-0006la-Ew for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:19:32 -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 VAA01026; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:19:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gwfh-00024a-00; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:19:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gwfh-00024W-00; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:19:29 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gwfF-0006ji-7X; Sun, 27 Jul 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 19gwf1-0006jX-WE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:18:48 -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 VAA01018 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:18:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gwez-00024T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:18:45 -0400 Received: from law12-f51.law12.hotmail.com ([64.4.19.51] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gwey-00024Q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:18:45 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 18:18:15 -0700 Received: from 12.254.138.252 by lw12fd.law12.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 01:18:14 GMT X-Originating-IP: [12.254.138.252] X-Originating-Email: [pontifier@hotmail.com] From: "John Fenley" To: asrg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jul 2003 01:18:15.0236 (UTC) FILETIME=[1EAB6840:01C354A6] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id VAA01019 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: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:18:14 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: "John Fenley" >From: "Alan DeKok" >>I think you hit the nail on the head, there. Establishing mutual >>consent is NOT about ensuring "legitimate" behaviour, and it's NOT >>about enforcing that behaviour. It's about the sender being able to >>make statements about his behaviour, and the recipient being able to >>choose to stop communicating with the sender when his actions don't >>match his words. > >Hey that's a great idea! >What if there was a system that could allow that to happen....wish I'd=20 >thought of that. >Oh wait... > Perhaps I was a bit hasty and sarcastic in this post. I have been working for 3 months on a system I call Choicelist that would= =20 allow senders to describe how they will send their mail, and allow=20 recipients to block mail that did not match the senders description, as w= ell=20 as filter on other consent based decisions. This was to prevent spoofing,= =20 but I see now it works both ways as it allows a sender to prove themselve= s=20 regardless of ISP or connection. You can see an early version at my website: www.choicelist.com I do feel that Mr. DeKok is absolutely correct, and I wish I were able to= =20 word my statements as well as he did: =93It's about the sender being able to make statements about his behaviou= r,=20 and the recipient being able to choose to stop communicating with the sen= der=20 when his actions don't match his words.=94 John Fenley www.choicelist.com http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/spam/Supplements/fenley.pdf _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. =20 http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/featuredemail _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jul 27 23:39:59 2003 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 XAA04057 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:39:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gyrA-00027E-DX for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:39:33 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6S3dSfS008130 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:39:28 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gyrA-000273-7D for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:39:28 -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 XAA04051; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:39:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gyr8-0003QP-00; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:39:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gyr7-0003QM-00; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:39:25 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gyqj-00023d-4x; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:39:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gyqf-00023Q-L4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:38:57 -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 XAA04037 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:38:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gyqd-0003Pv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:38:55 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gyqc-0003Pp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:38:54 -0400 Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[24.60.130.37](untrusted sender)) by attbi.com (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <2003072803382101400t7m41e>; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 03:38:24 +0000 From: To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , , "'Kee Hinckley'" Cc: "'Dave Crocker'" , Subject: RE: 7b. Best Practices - Mail Administrators (was RE: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out?) Keywords: asrg MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5329 In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.12.0.20030727202947.02d80df0@std5.imagineis.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Thread-Index: AcNUoD60aPk/w8uVTIeRLjqP9G2aAwAGHEKw 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: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:38:17 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ISPs allow? Since the concept of separating access from service is controversial on this list I don't want to divert people into that issue so I'll simply note that one should not presume the existence of a third party providing a service. One can choose to use a third party but such third parties are not fundamental -- they are just vendors providing a service for those who would rather buy from someone else even when it is already available on their machines -- at least for outgoing on XP and Unix. Incoming on XP requires SMTP=>POP and that isn't hard. I have a fancy one and might write a simple one just to be helpful. IIS already provides most of the base mechanism. But there are too many other diversions. Again, I'm simply pointing out the distinction and don't want to get into a long discussion. -----Original Message----- From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 20:36 To: asrg@bobf.frankston.com; 'Kee Hinckley' Cc: Dave Crocker; asrg@ietf.org Subject: 7b. Best Practices - Mail Administrators (was RE: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out?) At 08:01 PM 7/27/2003, asrg@bobf.frankston.com wrote: >....... >What I will respond to is your statement that I am somehow going through a >lot of extra work to sneak past my ISP. That is offensive and utterly wrong. >My ISP is whimsical and changes the email addresses of its millions of >subscribers whenever it decides to -- continental cablevision ==> Mediaone >==> JoesDryCleaningAndInternetService => ATTBI => Comcast. They also have >problematic policies when I want to send email other than via their approved >wires and I accidentally connect via my neighbor's access point or through >the wrong path on my Dual WAN they just won't deal with me. The whole point >of the Internet is to avoid being at the mercy of benevolence of those that >demand to do me good. >....... Quote from this reply: .......THEY ALSO HAVE PROBLEMATIC POLICIES..... This is something that the ASRG can address by developing BCPs that then can be promoted to the rest of the Net. There isn't much else we can do beside that aside from taking these issues into account when evaluating solutions. I believe that was already addressed in the "Technical Considerations" document, section 4.2, "Burden": "Effective mechanisms must place some kind of burden on senders and receivers. Hence a challenge for spam control mechanisms is to require enough of a burden to be effective, but not so much that it makes email unacceptably painful to use." Within the consent framework, I have to agree with others that the ISPs should allow users to exchange consent information. This would also be part of a BCP. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jul 28 00:44:53 2003 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 AAA05339 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:44:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gzs4-0003uF-0j for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:44:28 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6S4iRhB015007 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:44:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gzs3-0003tt-Si for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:44:27 -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 AAA05326; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:44:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gzs1-00043c-00; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:44:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gzs0-00043Z-00; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:44:24 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gzrd-0003qq-SC; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:44:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19gzqp-0003pv-7d for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:43:11 -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 AAA05301 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:43:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gzqm-00042Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:43:08 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19gzql-00042T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:43:07 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (dyn-65-65.ham.dial.tht.net [134.22.65.65]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 025FE36A11 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:43:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:43:10 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Message-ID: <20030728004310.A9965@m433> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i Subject: [Asrg] Proposal: MTA whitelisting using DNSbls Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 28 Jul 2003 00:43:10 -0400 I'm not an expert on DNS, and I don't know how difficult the following would be, but here goes... Pre-Amble ========= A lot of today's spam comes from compromised home machines. DNSbls of dynamic IP address allocations attempt to list these ranges, but are having extreme difficulty keeping up with ever-expanding allocations. The basic problem is that there are hundreds of millions, if not low billions, of dynamic IP addresses, and a much smaller number of MTAs which should be sending email. Attempting to keep track of dynamic IP addresses is doing things "the hard way". It would take much less effort to keep track of authorized senders within a range op IP addresses. RMX and similar proposals attempt to address this problem, but would require structural changes in bind and in DNS client software, which makes acceptance and implementation problematical. The Proposal ============ I propose additional functionality in DNSbls. The best explanation is via example. - assume the existance of DNSbl mta_list_zone.tld - assume that your MTA is contacted by a machine with IP address 10.9.8.7 and rDNS of really.bad.example.com. Your MTA would do a DNS query for really.bad.example.com.7.8.9.10.mta_list_zone.tld The DNSbl would implement the following logic... - if address 10.9.8.7 is in the list of authorized MTAs, the return value would be 127.0.0.2, i.e. OK to accept - if address 10.9.8.7 is not in the list of authorized MTAs, and mta_list_zone.tld considers itself authoratative for either bad.example.com or example.com, the return value would be 127.0.0.3, i.e. recommend rejection - if address 10.9.8.7 is not in the list of authorized MTAs, and mta_list_zone.tld doesn't consider itself authoratative for either bad.example.com or example.com, the return value would be 127.0.0.4, i.e. don't know Advantages ========== - Like RMX etal, this proposal would require keeping track of far fewer addresses than dynamic IP address DNSbls. - Unlike RMX etal, it would not be necessary to register your domain with the list. Using an authorized MTA would be sufficient - Unlike RMX etal, no new DNS records or changes to bind or DNS client software would be required. All the changes would be in MTA filter/blocking plugins (milter, etc) and DNSbls. -- 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 Jul 28 13:43:12 2003 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 NAA13770 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:43:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hC1F-0008D9-W7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:42:46 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6SHgj1S031559 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:42:45 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hC1F-0008Cw-TK for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:42:45 -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 NAA13735; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:42:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hC1D-00066R-00; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:42:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hC1C-00066O-00; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:42:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hC0Y-00085d-2H; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:42:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hC0B-00085C-Fy for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:41:39 -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 NAA13698 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:41:35 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hC09-00065b-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:41:37 -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 19hC08-00065T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:41:36 -0400 Received: (cpmta 25316 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2003 10:41:35 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.64) with SMTP; 28 Jul 2003 10:41:35 -0700 X-Sent: 28 Jul 2003 17:41:35 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:39:47 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:11:08 -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] 0. General - posting format and filtering Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 28 Jul 2003 13:11:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just various FYI observations... Over the weekend, I finally added [simple] "whitelist" and "blacklist" capabilities to my personal mail filtering system. This still falls, FWIW, short of my proposed 'permissions list' capabilities, but it's a step in the right direction at least. > -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , One interesting thing I noted as I went through much of the "suspense" E-mail that had accumulated over the last few weeks (and based primarily on content filtering) is that numerous of my ASRG digests had been routed as "suspect spam" due to Dave's sig file (the mail filtering system content filter found his telephone and fax numbers and decided that they looked like "bogus HTML tags"... which, of course, they are!). I wonder if I should refine that particular criteria to say that only 'some number' of such bogus tags in a given e-mail ought to trigger the "it's probably spam!" determination...? Anybody with any ideas on that topic? 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 Jul 28 14:05:49 2003 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 OAA14456 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:05:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hCN7-0000k7-UT for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:05:22 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6SI5Lh4002849 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:05:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hCN7-0000js-RG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:05:21 -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 OAA14443; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:05:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hCN5-0006IN-00; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:05:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hCN4-0006IK-00; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:05:18 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hCMm-0000fm-Uj; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:05:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hCM3-0000ev-SM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:04:15 -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 OAA14339 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:04:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hCLl-0006HP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:03:57 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hCLk-0006HK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:03:56 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:02:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:50:28 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'gep2@terabites.com'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 0. General - posting format and filtering 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, 28 Jul 2003 13:50:27 -0400 Questions about tuning your personal anti-spam client seems to be appropriate for customer support at your vendor not for the ASRG. > -----Original Message----- > From: gep2@terabites.com [mailto:gep2@terabites.com] > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 2:11 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - posting format and filtering > > > Just various FYI observations... > > Over the weekend, I finally added [simple] "whitelist" and > "blacklist" > capabilities to my personal mail filtering system. > > This still falls, FWIW, short of my proposed 'permissions > list' capabilities, > but it's a step in the right direction at least. > > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > Sunnyvale, CA USA , > > One interesting thing I noted as I went through much of the > "suspense" E-mail > that had accumulated over the last few weeks (and based > primarily on content > filtering) is that numerous of my ASRG digests had been > routed as "suspect spam" > due to Dave's sig file (the mail filtering system content > filter found his > telephone and fax numbers and decided that they looked like > "bogus HTML tags"... > which, of course, they are!). > > I wonder if I should refine that particular criteria to say > that only 'some > number' of such bogus tags in a given e-mail ought to trigger > the "it's probably > spam!" determination...? Anybody with any ideas on that topic? > > 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 Mon Jul 28 16:23:09 2003 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 QAA19877 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:23:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hEW1-0001r0-Ig for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:22:43 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6SKMfa4007122 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:22:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hEW1-0001qn-Fu for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:22:41 -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 QAA19869; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:22:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hEVz-0007f9-00; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:22:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hEVz-0007f6-00; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:22:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hEVN-0001nJ-Iy; Mon, 28 Jul 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 19hEVF-0001n4-Io for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:21:53 -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 QAA19853 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:21:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hEVD-0007eY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:21:51 -0400 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hEVC-0007eV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:21:50 -0400 Received: (qmail 68481 invoked by uid 1013); 28 Jul 2003 20:21:48 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Dave Crocker Cc: Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? (fwd) Message-ID: <20030728222148.A67641@Space.Net> References: <2034554116.20030726164323@brandenburg.com> <13392113912.20030727084243@brandenburg.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: <13392113912.20030727084243@brandenburg.com>; from dhc@dcrocker.net on Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 08:42:43AM -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: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:21:48 +0200 Dave, On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 08:42:43AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: > In many cases, one can not. This changes the issues for authentication > and inter-administration authorization. Different access services > employ different rules. Sometimes the rules collide. Why? Even roaming users access their POP3/IMAP Mailboxes from everywhere. Request for Comments: 2554, March 1999 SMTP Service Extension for Authentication is four years old. The concept of SMTP after POP is even older. Authorization shouldn't be that problem. > That is a facile, but not very useful response. First it contains no > substantiation of such a dismissal, and second it ignores the realities > that users experience. The reality is that we all suffer. Without pressure and making public solution that are state-of-the-art for almost 4 years to help the users add pressure to their provider or even just tell them there ARE solutions despite what their ISP claims, nothing will change. And in the end it always breaks down to "you get what you pay for". One can't expect to get the quality of a Porsche for the price of a Volkswagen Beetle. In the "real world" everyone understands this concept. But in the Internet there is "anarchy" and "everything is possible" and of course it has to be free :/ And with everything that gets restricted there are a few that are unhappy. However I'd guess that if no "remote" mailserver would accept emails from dialin IPs at most 1% of all Internet users would recognize the change at all (besides the drop of the virus/spam rate that is). \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 Mon Jul 28 16:32:48 2003 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 QAA20160 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:32:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hEfN-0002X6-IE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:32:22 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6SKWL7x009730 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:32:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hEfN-0002Wr-Dr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:32:21 -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 QAA20154; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:32:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hEfL-0007jV-00; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:32:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hEfK-0007jS-00; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:32:18 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hEf3-0002Tq-0j; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:32:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hEeG-0002Sc-Sz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:31:12 -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 QAA20135 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:31:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hEeF-0007jJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:31:11 -0400 Received: from www.gamerz.net ([66.92.144.25] helo=play.gamerz.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hEeE-0007jG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:31:10 -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 h6SKV9Ol002091 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168 bits) verified NO) for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:31:09 -0400 Received: (from rrognlie@localhost) by play.gamerz.net (Switch-3.1.0/Switch-3.1.0/Submit) id h6SKV9EU002090 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:31:09 -0400 From: Richard Rognlie To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030728203109.GC27473@gamerz.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: [Asrg] DRIP Milter for Sendmail Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 28 Jul 2003 16:31:09 -0400 I've created a perl milter that attempts to implement the DRIP draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-brand-drip-01.txt you can find it in http://www.gamerz.net/rrognlie/milters/ there is also an mx based milter there that blocks mail from an envelope sender whose domain contains MX records that resolve to 127.0.0.1 I am running the DRIP milter on my system already, and was pleasantly surprised to see that other folks have started implementing the DRIP mechanism in their DNS zones. you can see from my dripmilter.log that I am catching the occasional HELO forgery. Whoo hoo! Richard -- / \__ | 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 Mon Jul 28 16:37:57 2003 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 QAA20377 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:37:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hEkM-00035e-J7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:37:31 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6SKbUVi011872 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:37:30 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hEkM-00035P-Dt for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:37:30 -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 QAA20368; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:37:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hEkK-0007lc-00; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:37:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hEkJ-0007lZ-00; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:37:27 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hEjt-0002tQ-Qc; Mon, 28 Jul 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 19hEjY-0002sc-5b for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:36:40 -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 QAA20353 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:36:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hEjW-0007l8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:36:38 -0400 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hEjV-0007l5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:36:37 -0400 Received: (qmail 68694 invoked by uid 1013); 28 Jul 2003 20:36:36 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Walter Dnes Cc: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal: MTA whitelisting using DNSbls Message-ID: <20030728223636.B67641@Space.Net> References: <20030728004310.A9965@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: <20030728004310.A9965@m433>; from waltdnes@waltdnes.org on Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 12:43:10AM -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, 28 Jul 2003 22:36:36 +0200 On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 12:43:10AM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: > I'm not an expert on DNS, and I don't know how difficult the > following would be, but here goes... Wouldn't it be easier to avoid the centralized concept and use a decentralised like https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg06115.html instead. However it requires administration of reverse DNS space (in-addr.arpa) which is kinda out of fashion these days. The biggest problem with your proposal I see in the process of becoming "whitelisted". Another proposal that uses existing DNS infrastructure but suffers from the "forward" problem just like RMX is SPF: http://spf.pobox.com/ \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 Mon Jul 28 22:54:47 2003 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 WAA28153 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:54:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hKd3-0007NV-Tz for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:54:22 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6T2sLMK028347 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:54:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hKd3-0007N1-Nw for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:54:21 -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 WAA28140; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:54:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hKd0-00029B-00; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:54:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hKcz-000295-00; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:54:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hKbk-0007DS-M7; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:53:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hKbJ-0007D9-14 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:52:33 -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 WAA28113 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:52:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hKbF-00028d-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:52:29 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hKbD-00028a-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:52:28 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (dyn-65-71.ham.dial.tht.net [134.22.65.71]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C759E36996 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:52:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:52:25 +4400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? Message-ID: <20030728225225.B2113@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 asrg@bobf.frankston.com on Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 02:24:38PM -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, 28 Jul 2003 22:52:25 -0400 On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 02:24:38PM -0400, asrg@bobf.frankston.com wrote > The responses I got (only 2) remind me of the concept that free speech > is only allowed as long as you don't abuse it. For this list I must > point translate this phrase to point out that restricting free speech > to what is allowed ain't no free speech. It's heartening to see the > reaction in Hong Kong to the attempts to make sure they don't get > too much freedom. Tell me... what would your reaction be to a sound-truck going through your residential neighbourhood at 2:30 AM blaring "HALF-PRICE VIAGRA" ? Would you rave on about their "freedom of speech" ? > I don't really think I need to respond to the suggestions that > we should limit email to approved messages via approved channels > containing approved content but might as well make a futile attempt. > But I realize this is a religious war between those who know good > from bad as absolutes and those who don't see them as invariants. Let's make a deal... I won't tell you what to do, and you don't me what to do. I won't tell you that you *MUST BLOCK* the 99% penis-pill and viagra and porn and toner-cartridge spams that comes from dynamic IP address ranges, and you don't tell me that I *MUST ACCEPT* the 99% penis-pill and viagra and porn and toner-cartridge spams that comes from dynamic IP address ranges. > I don't want an ISP and I must not be required to have an ISP I want an ISP and I must not be required to accept the 99% of garbage that comes from dynamic IP addresses. > As to no HTML -- that only applies to lists of people who eschew > expressive typography. I long ago eschewed my 16-colour Crayola set in favour of pen and ink, but I do not find my expressive ability reduced. And a question for you... what exactly is "HTML" anyways ? Theoretically, there's supposed to be a standard, somewhere out there. But companies love standards so much that everybody wants to have their own. Ever tried writing anything more than a simple webpage without employing separate hacks for Netscape 4.X, Internet Explorer, Mozilla, and Opera ? Do you *REALLY* want to see an internet where usenet postings and email are "best viewed with browser X running plug-in Y at 800 X 600 resolution" ? And let's not forget that "the most popular web-browser/email/newsreader" has an annoying tendency to auto-execute stuff it shouldn't. Each time Microsoft plugs one security hole another one seems to pop up. One nice thing about text-mode usenet and email clients is that opening attachments is not an "adventure". > We can kill email and its expressive power in order to save it. Doctors occasionally have to amputate gangrenous limbs to save a human life. I, unfortunately, had to amputate South Korea, Taiwan, China, Nigeria, South America, and large chunks of US IP address space out of my email universe in order to maintain a functioning inbox. -- 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 Jul 28 22:55:43 2003 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 WAA28197 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:55:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hKdy-0007RK-Dl for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:55:18 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6T2tIFD028592 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:55:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hKdy-0007R5-Aa for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:55:18 -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 WAA28185; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:55:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hKdu-00029R-00; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:55:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hKdu-00029N-00; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:55:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hKdg-0007O5-SM; Mon, 28 Jul 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 19hKcr-0007K5-Ok for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:54:09 -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 WAA28132 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:54:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hKco-000292-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:54:06 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hKcn-00028z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:54:05 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (dyn-65-71.ham.dial.tht.net [134.22.65.71]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AA02336994 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:53:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:53:56 +4400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? Message-ID: <20030728225356.D2113@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 asrg@bobf.frankston.com on Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 08:01:53PM -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, 28 Jul 2003 22:53:56 -0400 On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 08:01:53PM -0400, asrg@bobf.frankston.com wrote > If AOL chooses to fight the Internet then I feel I have a > responsibility to limit the damage they do. AOL is fighting off a billion-plus spams per day. A lot of it comes from hijacked home machines. What gives you the right to demand that AOL clients "eat their spam" ? > If you choose to make it hard for me to send mail to you and you want > mail from me then it's in your interest for me have the incentive > to cater to your rules. You are setting a price for accepting your email. In order to accept your email, I would have to accept email from any and all valid and routable IP addresses on the internet. Upon consulting my reject logs, I come to the conclusion that your price is too high. I've seen your home page. It's fine and dandy that *YOU* have been using the internet (and its predecessor) for a third of a century. At the risk of being labelled elitist, let me point out that the vast majority of end-users on 24X7 brodband connections don't have a clue about how to secure their PC against compromise, are probably still trying to find the {ANY} key, and have no business running on such a connection. That doesn't mean they're idiots, it simply means they lack specific technical knowledge. I don't know how to fly a Cessna. That doesn't mean I'm an idiot, it simply means that I lack specific technical knowledge. Another thing to remember is that this is not your father's internet. A third of a century ago, DARPANET users were mostly white middle and upper class males, either military researchers, or civilians doing research under contract for the military. They all had security clearances, and were paid at such a level as not to require secondary income from Make-Money-Fast, Penis-Pills, Viagra, and other such sales. Today, almost anybody can connect to the internet. This includes ruthless criminal gangs who hijack the home computers of clueless newbies in order to pour out spam for Make-Money-Fast, Penis-Pills, Viagra, and other such garbage. The sad reality is that the internet is a lot uglier today than when you first started on it, especially the email that comes to you from dynamic IP addresses. Hiding your head in the sand won't work. -- 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 Jul 28 23:44:27 2003 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 WAA28152 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:54:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hKd3-0007NT-Tp for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:54:22 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6T2sLUr028341 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:54:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hKd3-0007N0-MW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:54:21 -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 WAA28142; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:54:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hKcz-00029E-00; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:54:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hKcz-000296-00; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:54:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hKbl-0007Da-0s; Mon, 28 Jul 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 19hKbi-0007DH-AZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:52:58 -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 WAA28121 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:52:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hKbe-00028m-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:52:54 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hKbe-00028j-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:52:54 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (dyn-65-71.ham.dial.tht.net [134.22.65.71]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 80B593697B for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:52:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:53:01 +4400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal: MTA whitelisting using DNSbls Message-ID: <20030728225301.C2113@m433> References: <20030728004310.A9965@m433> <20030728223636.B67641@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20030728223636.B67641@Space.Net>; from maex-lists-spam-ietf-asrg@Space.Net on Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 10:36:36PM +0200 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 28 Jul 2003 22:53:01 -0400 On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 10:36:36PM +0200, Markus Stumpf wrote > On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 12:43:10AM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: > > I'm not an expert on DNS, and I don't know how difficult the > > following would be, but here goes... > > Wouldn't it be easier to avoid the centralized concept and use a > decentralised like > https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg06115.html > instead. No more centralized than today. You can choose from BOFH DNSbls or "kinder/gentler" DNSbls today. My proposal is about enhancing DNSbl functionality. You should still be able to pick and choose amongst several choices. > The biggest problem with your proposal I see in the process of > becoming "whitelisted". The ISP provides the list. If a consumer ISP doesn't know what IP addresses its MTAs are using, this is probably the least of their problems. -- 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 Tue Jul 29 11:53:05 2003 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 LAA26994 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:53:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hWmF-00083F-Ug for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:52:40 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6TFqdSI030944 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:52:39 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hWmF-000831-Qa for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:52:39 -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 LAA26987; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:52:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hWmE-0006jY-00; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:52:38 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hWmE-0006jV-00; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:52:38 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hWld-0007zv-JT; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:52:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hWlZ-0007zh-N5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:51:57 -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 LAA26982 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:51:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hWlY-0006jP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:51:56 -0400 Received: from earth.tc.umn.edu ([160.94.5.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hWlX-0006jM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:51:55 -0400 Received: by earth.tc.umn.edu; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:51:46 -0500 From: Steven F Siirila To: Walter Dnes Cc: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? Message-ID: <20030729155146.GC10732@earth.tc.umn.edu> References: <20030728225356.D2113@m433> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030728225356.D2113@m433> 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, 29 Jul 2003 10:51:46 -0500 FWIW, the University of Minnesota also, by default, blocks all email which originates from dynamic IP addresses. This behavior can be changed on a per-user basis. We've had little to no complaints and a lot of support for this. On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 10:53:56PM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: > On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 08:01:53PM -0400, asrg@bobf.frankston.com wrote > > > If AOL chooses to fight the Internet then I feel I have a > > responsibility to limit the damage they do. > > AOL is fighting off a billion-plus spams per day. A lot of it comes > from hijacked home machines. What gives you the right to demand that > AOL clients "eat their spam" ? > > > If you choose to make it hard for me to send mail to you and you want > > mail from me then it's in your interest for me have the incentive > > to cater to your rules. > > You are setting a price for accepting your email. In order to accept > your email, I would have to accept email from any and all valid and > routable IP addresses on the internet. Upon consulting my reject logs, > I come to the conclusion that your price is too high. > > I've seen your home page. It's fine and dandy that *YOU* have been > using the internet (and its predecessor) for a third of a century. At > the risk of being labelled elitist, let me point out that the vast > majority of end-users on 24X7 brodband connections don't have a clue > about how to secure their PC against compromise, are probably still > trying to find the {ANY} key, and have no business running on such a > connection. That doesn't mean they're idiots, it simply means they lack > specific technical knowledge. I don't know how to fly a Cessna. That > doesn't mean I'm an idiot, it simply means that I lack specific > technical knowledge. > > Another thing to remember is that this is not your father's internet. > A third of a century ago, DARPANET users were mostly white middle and > upper class males, either military researchers, or civilians doing > research under contract for the military. They all had security > clearances, and were paid at such a level as not to require secondary > income from Make-Money-Fast, Penis-Pills, Viagra, and other such sales. > Today, almost anybody can connect to the internet. This includes > ruthless criminal gangs who hijack the home computers of clueless > newbies in order to pour out spam for Make-Money-Fast, Penis-Pills, > Viagra, and other such garbage. The sad reality is that the internet is > a lot uglier today than when you first started on it, especially the > email that comes to you from dynamic IP addresses. Hiding your head in > the sand won't work. > > -- > 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 -- 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 Tue Jul 29 12:30:46 2003 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 MAA28446 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:30:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hXMj-00028s-N5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:30:21 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6TGULHk008228 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:30:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hXMj-00028d-JJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:30:21 -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 MAA28426; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:30:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hXMh-00078X-00; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:30:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hXMh-00078U-00; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:30:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hXMP-000259-9I; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:30:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hXLo-00023U-4n for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:29:24 -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 MAA28406 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:29:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hXLk-000783-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:29:20 -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 19hXLj-000780-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:29:20 -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 19hXKl-000784-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:28:19 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:53:56 EDT." <20030728225356.D2113@m433> 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, 29 Jul 2003 12:28:19 -0400 Walter Dnes wrote: ... Can we agree that discussions of "free speech" are explicitely outside of the scope of this group? Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 29 15:17:00 2003 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 PAA06124 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:17:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hZxZ-0000SC-Kp for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:16:34 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6TJGXgS001738 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:16:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hZxZ-0000Rx-G7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:16:33 -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 PAA06079; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:16:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hZxY-00014u-00; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:16:32 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hZxX-00014r-00; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:16:31 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hZx3-0000Od-Ot; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:16:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hZwr-0000OI-TU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:15:49 -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 PAA06030 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:15:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hZwq-00014d-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:15:48 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hZwp-00014A-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:15:48 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:14:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:02:17 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: 7b. Best practices - Mail Administrators (was RE: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? ) 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: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:02:16 -0400 > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@freeradius.org] > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 12:28 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? > Can we agree that discussions of "free speech" are > explicitely outside of the scope of this group? Yes. Can we also agree that this thread has led to some considerations for best practices for mail administrators? These considerations were summarized in a previous message: https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg06685.html Further conversations on this topic should be in regard to best practices. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 29 15:19:45 2003 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 PAA06239 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:19:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ha0F-0000hD-GB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:19:19 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6TJJJOY002671 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:19:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ha0F-0000h0-C4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:19:19 -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 PAA06220; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:19:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ha0E-000175-00; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:19:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ha0D-000172-00; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:19:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hZzw-0000aJ-RP; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:19:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hZz2-0000ZO-Nj for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:18:04 -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 PAA06164 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:18:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hZz1-00015d-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:18:03 -0400 Received: from law12-f62.law12.hotmail.com ([64.4.19.62] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hZz0-00015M-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:18:02 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:17:16 -0700 Received: from 12.254.138.252 by lw12fd.law12.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:17:15 GMT X-Originating-IP: [12.254.138.252] X-Originating-Email: [pontifier@hotmail.com] From: "John Fenley" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] 4.d List of possible consent decisions Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jul 2003 19:17:16.0474 (UTC) FILETIME=[05DE19A0:01C35606] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id PAA06165 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 29 Jul 2003 13:17:15 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have created a list of decisions that I feel allow the user to form a=20 fairly complete consent model with minimal work. All the options in this list would be possible to implement automatically= =20 through the Choicelist system with a few modifications that I have been=20 working on. Mostly third party lists, and Choicelist personal. I realize that many of the items in this list have been discussed here=20 before, but I have found that tracking down the original poster of differ= ent=20 ideas is difficult. List of choices that CAN be made by the recipient: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Give feedback: Yes, No, Selectively. Default: Yes Feedback allows a sender to see how you handle their mail. It tells bulk=20 mailers that you do or don=92t want what they are sending, by telling the= m if=20 you are ignoring them, or requesting that you receive their mailing if yo= u=20 aren=92t currently. This lowers costs to everyone over the long run. Selective mode asks you before sending a message. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Receive bulk email: List valid Choicelist bulk email Ids. Default: No entries Default: each entry in a different folder =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Receive bulk introductions: Yes, No, Timed. Default: Yes A bulk introduction is a short blurb giving the name of the id responsibl= e=20 for the message, and asking if you would like to add them to your list, o= r=20 ignore them forever. The timed option allows only Ids that were created before a certain date,= or=20 a number of days/months/years ago to be introduced. This proves a measur= e=20 of stability on the part of the sender. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Receive =93ADV:=94 labeled mail: Yes, no. Default: Yes Default: placed in ADV folder and deleted after 30 days. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Whitelist / blacklist: List addresses or ids to block/allow. Default: No entries =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Receive personal email: Yes, No, Timed. Default: Yes The timed option makes Personal mail wait an amount of time before it is=20 delivered. This raises the chance that a spamming personal Id will be=20 terminated before the spam is delivered. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Receive/block mail from third party lists: List all valid Choicelist third party lists, and select block, or allow,=20 plus handling options. Default: No entries Lists are evaluated first to last, as a party may be on more than one lis= t. The last entry that mentions a party gives the final destination of mail=20 from them. Eg: City Highschool: (allow): [school] City Highschool bullies: (block) Tim=92s friends: (allow): [Tim=92s friends] Everyone from city highschool will go in the school folder unless they=92= re a=20 bully or Tim=92s friend, while all of Tim=92s friends go in the Tim=92s f= riends=20 folder even if they go to city high or are a bully. Bullies who are not Tim=92s friend go to the trash. These groups must be created and registered before being used. IP based lists may be added as well, though these only affect non-Choicel= ist=20 registered mail. Anyone not on these lists is unaffected by these options. Anyone can create a list, and put anyone on it. This list is then made=20 public, though it will be encrypted. These lists can be updated by the list controler. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Third party filters: List Choicelist compatible filters here. Default: No entries These are filters that have been interfaced with Choicelist. These filters are run according to the makers specifications, but user=20 options may be set up if available. When a filter is put here it should just work. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Miscellaneous filters: Run other filters here. Default: No filters Possibly run on a virtual machine to prevent unauthorized actions unrelat= ed=20 to email. Filters that need to be messed with go here. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Where unknown, unfiltered mail goes: Specify folder. Default: Inbox 2 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D In the default configuration, mail from businesses would be introduced, a= nd=20 all registered personal mail would be delivered. ADV: labeled mail is=20 temporarily put in a folder to be deleted automatically. Everything else would go into a second inbox to be dealt with later. I think theses options would handle most basic to advanced consent models. The ability to filter based on group membership, I feel, would be especia= lly=20 useful in defining consent. Does anyone have any other choices that a user should be able to make as = far=20 as consent goes? John Fenley www.choicelist.com _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* =20 http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/junkmail _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 29 15:34:52 2003 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 PAA06624 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:34:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19haEq-00018B-Uk for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:34:26 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6TJYO3p004341 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:34:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19haEq-00017w-Qg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:34:24 -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 PAA06598; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:34:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19haEp-0001E2-00; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:34:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19haEo-0001Dz-00; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:34:22 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19haET-0000zP-Bu; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:34:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19haEP-0000z1-0V for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:33:57 -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 PAA06591 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:33:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19haEN-0001Dp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:33:55 -0400 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19haEM-0001Dm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:33:54 -0400 Received: (qmail 85696 invoked by uid 1013); 29 Jul 2003 19:33:52 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Walter Dnes Cc: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal: MTA whitelisting using DNSbls Message-ID: <20030729213352.A84347@Space.Net> References: <20030728004310.A9965@m433> <20030728223636.B67641@Space.Net> <20030728225301.C2113@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: <20030728225301.C2113@m433>; from waltdnes@waltdnes.org on Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 10:53:01PM -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, 29 Jul 2003 21:33:52 +0200 On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 10:53:01PM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: > The ISP provides the list. If a consumer ISP doesn't know what IP > addresses its MTAs are using, this is probably the least of their > problems. So what are the rules to get added to the list? With DNS*BL* it's easy. The IP fails the criterion of the DNSBL and is added. It fixes the problems gets retested and removed. But who is responsible for the centralized whitelisting DNSWL? Will it be used as a pressure against some Mailservers? (We don't like you, we don't like your content, we don't like your users?). \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 Jul 29 17:17:06 2003 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 RAA09884 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:17:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hbpp-0006R2-GM for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:16:41 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6TLGffr024730 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:16:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hbpp-0006Qn-C8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:16:41 -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 RAA09877; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:16:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hbpk-0001xT-00; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:16:36 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hbpj-0001xO-00; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:16:35 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hbpA-0006NT-Se; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:16:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hbor-0006Mn-6v for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:15:41 -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 RAA09832 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:15:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hboo-0001wT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:15:38 -0400 Received: from p67-39.acedsl.com ([66.114.67.39] helo=66.114.67.39) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hboo-0001vy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:15:38 -0400 Message-Id: <6.0.0.12.0.20030729171427.02eaeab0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.12 (Beta) To: Paul Judge , "'asrg@ietf.org'" From: Yakov Shafranovich In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Subject: [Asrg] Re: 7b. Best practices - Mail Administrators (was RE: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? ) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 29 Jul 2003 17:14:51 -0400 At 03:02 PM 7/29/2003, Paul Judge wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@freeradius.org] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 12:28 PM > > To: asrg@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? > > > Can we agree that discussions of "free speech" are > > explicitely outside of the scope of this group? > >Yes. > >Can we also agree that this thread has led to some considerations for best >practices for mail administrators? > >These considerations were summarized in a previous message: >https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg06685.html > >Further conversations on this topic should be in regard to best practices. Anyone who wants to start writing up something on BCPs is more then welcome to. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jul 29 18:34:59 2003 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 SAA13608 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:34:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hd3B-00029U-2U for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:34:35 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6TMYXBR008266 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:34:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hd3A-00029F-VE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:34:32 -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 SAA13595; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:34:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hd37-0002Zy-00; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:34:30 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hd37-0002Zv-00; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:34:29 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hd2f-00025U-Pc; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:34:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hd2O-00022j-4m for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:33:44 -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 SAA13571 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:33:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hd2L-0002ZO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:33:41 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hd2K-0002ZL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:33:40 -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 <20030729223546.UBBP15355.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:35:46 -0400 Message-ID: <3F26F639.5080201@garbagedump.com> From: C Wegrzyn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030723 Thunderbird/0.1a X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yakov Shafranovich CC: Paul Judge , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 7b. Best practices - Mail Administrators References: <6.0.0.12.0.20030729171427.02eaeab0@std5.imagineis.com> In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.12.0.20030729171427.02eaeab0@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: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:33:29 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'll be more than happy to start writing the BCP. Would those people that have ideas that should go in it please contact me? I'll assemble all the information into a document. Chuck Wegrzyn Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > At 03:02 PM 7/29/2003, Paul Judge wrote: > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@freeradius.org] >> > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 12:28 PM >> > To: asrg@ietf.org >> > Subject: Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? >> >> > Can we agree that discussions of "free speech" are >> > explicitely outside of the scope of this group? >> >> Yes. >> >> Can we also agree that this thread has led to some considerations for >> best >> practices for mail administrators? >> >> These considerations were summarized in a previous message: >> https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg06685.html >> >> >> Further conversations on this topic should be in regard to best >> practices. > > > Anyone who wants to start writing up something on BCPs is more then > welcome to. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 29 18:57:47 2003 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 SAA14250 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:57:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hdPI-0003L5-45 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:57:24 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6TMvOmu012829 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:57:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hdPI-0003Kq-0d for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:57:24 -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 SAA14241; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:57:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hdPE-0002ha-00; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:57:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hdPE-0002hX-00; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:57:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hdOv-0003Ea-2N; Tue, 29 Jul 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 19hdNz-0003BT-35 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:56:03 -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 SAA14225 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:55:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hdNv-0002h4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:55:59 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hdNu-0002gq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:55:58 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:54:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:42:34 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'C Wegrzyn'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: 7b. Best practices - Mail Administrators 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: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:42:33 -0400 Chuck, I would suggest starting with RFC 2505: Anti-Spam Recommendations for SMTP MTAs. I would suggest doing an inventory of it to see what it lacks based on today's environment and technology. Perhaps you can start with a draft that lists what additions or changes we would make to RFC 2505 today. We certainly don't want to simply duplicate that work. You should also contact the author of that work to see if he has thoughts on this topic or is interested in contributing. Also, be sure to coordinate with Chris Lewis as he was working on BCP about filtering and blacklists. (https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00838.htm l) Others: what other resources should be used as a starting point? Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: C Wegrzyn [mailto:wegrzyn@garbagedump.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 6:33 PM > To: Yakov Shafranovich > Cc: Paul Judge; 'asrg@ietf.org' > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 7b. Best practices - Mail Administrators > > > I'll be more than happy to start writing the BCP. Would those people > that have ideas that should go in it please contact me? I'll assemble > all the information into a document. > > Chuck Wegrzyn > > > Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > > At 03:02 PM 7/29/2003, Paul Judge wrote: > > > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@freeradius.org] > >> > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 12:28 PM > >> > To: asrg@ietf.org > >> > Subject: Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? > >> > >> > Can we agree that discussions of "free speech" are explicitely > >> > outside of the scope of this group? > >> > >> Yes. > >> > >> Can we also agree that this thread has led to some > considerations for > >> best > >> practices for mail administrators? > >> > >> These considerations were summarized in a previous message: > >> > https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-> groups/asrg/current/msg066 > >> 85.html > >> > >> > >> Further conversations on this topic should be in regard to best > >> practices. > > > > > > Anyone who wants to start writing up something on BCPs is more then > > welcome to. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Jul 29 19:08:43 2003 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 TAA14595 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:08:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hdZs-000485-Hy for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:08:20 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6TN8KCB015867 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:08:20 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hdZs-00047q-DZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:08:20 -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 TAA14590; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:08:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hdZp-0002n2-00; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:08:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hdZo-0002mz-00; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:08:16 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hdZZ-0003zj-24; Tue, 29 Jul 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 19hdZB-0003sg-G8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:07:37 -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 TAA14551 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:07:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hdZ8-0002mb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:07:34 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hdZ7-0002mY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:07:33 -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 <20030729230942.UJNA15355.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:09:42 -0400 Message-ID: <3F26FE39.3080001@garbagedump.com> From: C Wegrzyn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030723 Thunderbird/0.1a X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Judge CC: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 7b. Best practices - Mail Administrators 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: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:07:37 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks Paul. I was already reading 2505 and had planned on using it as a starting point. I will get in touch with Chris... Chuck Paul Judge wrote: > Chuck, > > I would suggest starting with RFC 2505: Anti-Spam Recommendations for SMTP > MTAs. I would suggest doing an inventory of it to see what it lacks based on > today's environment and technology. Perhaps you can start with a draft that > lists what additions or changes we would make to RFC 2505 today. We > certainly don't want to simply duplicate that work. You should also contact > the author of that work to see if he has thoughts on this topic or is > interested in contributing. > > Also, be sure to coordinate with Chris Lewis as he was working on BCP about > filtering and blacklists. > (https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00838.htm > l) > > Others: what other resources should be used as a starting point? > > Paul > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: C Wegrzyn [mailto:wegrzyn@garbagedump.com] >>Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 6:33 PM >>To: Yakov Shafranovich >>Cc: Paul Judge; 'asrg@ietf.org' >>Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 7b. Best practices - Mail Administrators >> >> >>I'll be more than happy to start writing the BCP. Would those people >>that have ideas that should go in it please contact me? I'll assemble >>all the information into a document. >> >>Chuck Wegrzyn >> >> >>Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >> >> >>>At 03:02 PM 7/29/2003, Paul Judge wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>From: Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@freeradius.org] >>>>>Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 12:28 PM >>>>>To: asrg@ietf.org >>>>>Subject: Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? >>>> >>>>> Can we agree that discussions of "free speech" are explicitely >>>>>outside of the scope of this group? >>>> >>>>Yes. >>>> >>>>Can we also agree that this thread has led to some >> >>considerations for >> >>>>best >>>>practices for mail administrators? >>>> >>>>These considerations were summarized in a previous message: >>>> >> >>https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-> groups/asrg/current/msg066 >> >>>>85.html >>>> >>>> >>>>Further conversations on this topic should be in regard to best >>>>practices. >>> >>> >>>Anyone who wants to start writing up something on BCPs is more then >>>welcome to. >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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 Jul 29 22:06:52 2003 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 WAA19756 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:06:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hgMF-00036Q-5F for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:06:28 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6U26ROb011927 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:06:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hgME-00036I-VW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:06:26 -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 WAA19752; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:06:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hgMB-0004As-00; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:06:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hgMB-0004Ap-00; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:06:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hgKs-0002zV-3M; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:05:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hgK7-0002up-42 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:04:17 -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 WAA19725 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:04:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hgK4-0004A7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:04:12 -0400 Received: from p67-39.acedsl.com ([66.114.67.39] helo=66.114.67.39) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hgK3-00049q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:04:11 -0400 Message-Id: <6.0.0.12.0.20030729220151.02eb41a0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.12 (Beta) To: C Wegrzyn , Mark Ferguson , Mark Ferguson From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 7b. Best practices - Mail Administrators Cc: Paul Judge , "'asrg@ietf.org'" In-Reply-To: <3F26F639.5080201@garbagedump.com> References: <6.0.0.12.0.20030729171427.02eaeab0@std5.imagineis.com> <6.0.0.12.0.20030729171427.02eaeab0@std5.imagineis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 29 Jul 2003 22:03:18 -0400 I think Mark Ferguson has some input also from his project the-carrot-and-the-stick.com. Looking through the mailing list archive (use gmane.org for searching) will help, you can also use the mailing list summaries from William Leibzon. Some anti-spam organizations maintain various forms of BCPs as well. At 06:33 PM 7/29/2003, C Wegrzyn wrote: >I'll be more than happy to start writing the BCP. Would those people that >have ideas that should go in it please contact me? I'll assemble all the >information into a document. > >Chuck Wegrzyn > > >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >>At 03:02 PM 7/29/2003, Paul Judge wrote: >> >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@freeradius.org] >>> > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 12:28 PM >>> > To: asrg@ietf.org >>> > Subject: Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? >>> >>> > Can we agree that discussions of "free speech" are >>> > explicitely outside of the scope of this group? >>> >>>Yes. >>> >>>Can we also agree that this thread has led to some considerations for best >>>practices for mail administrators? >>> >>>These considerations were summarized in a previous message: >>>https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg06685.html >>> >>> >>>Further conversations on this topic should be in regard to best practices. >> >>Anyone who wants to start writing up something on BCPs is more then >>welcome to. >>_______________________________________________ >>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 Jul 31 14:33:34 2003 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 OAA07487 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:33:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iIEd-0007Pb-VA for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:33:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6VIX7S3028490 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:33:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iIEd-0007PR-SH for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:33:07 -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 OAA07479; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:33:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iIEb-0006Qt-00; Thu, 31 Jul 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 19iIEa-0006Qp-00; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:33:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iICc-00077M-V5; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:31:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iICG-00075y-9u for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:30:40 -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 OAA07374 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:30:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iICD-0006PO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:30:37 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iICB-0006Ot-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:30:35 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by imail.centuryc.net (SMTPD32-8.00) id A085888009C; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:31:33 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:36:51 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <307292da-b583-4659-86f0-8c3208ef6cd6> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C35792.037122F6" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data - Titan Key reduces spam attacks Thread-Index: AcNXkgNnYv0VOpWrTUumjmM3ksoIWQ== From: "Peter Kay" To: Subject: [Asrg] 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data - Titan Key reduces spam attacks Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 31 Jul 2003 08:31:53 -1000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C35792.037122F6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I've posted an updated log file analysis of spam sent to peterk@cyber-hawaii.com which is an old email address of mine that is still in use but under the protection of The Titan Key.=20 =20 that log file is at: http://www.titankey.com/misc/logs/logPK.xls =20 =20 We're happy to report that with about 100 days of analysis, the trend of spam attacks to this email address is DOWN. To our knowledge this is the only anti-spam software that has demonstrated this capability.=20 =20 As we've mentioned before, our technology responds with a 550 no such user after analyzing the MAIL FROM and RCPT TO against a consent database. This has the dual benefit of saving bandwidth (email contents are never sent) and, as shown above, reducing the attacks over time. =20 Peter ------_=_NextPart_001_01C35792.037122F6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
I've = posted an=20 updated log file analysis of spam sent to peterk@cyber-hawaii.com which is an old email address of mine that is still in use but = under the=20 protection of The Titan Key.
 
that = log file is at:=20 http://www.titankey.= com/misc/logs/logPK.xls
 
We're = happy to=20 report that with about 100 days of analysis, the trend of spam attacks = to this=20 email address is DOWN.  To our knowledge this is the only anti-spam = software that has demonstrated this capability.
 
As = we've mentioned=20 before, our technology responds with a 550 no such user after analyzing = the MAIL=20 FROM and RCPT TO against a consent database.    This has = the dual=20 benefit of saving bandwidth (email contents are never sent) and, as = shown above,=20 reducing the attacks over time.
 
Peter
=00 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C35792.037122F6-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 31 15:21:15 2003 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 PAA10080 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:21:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iIyl-00014x-0f for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:20:48 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6VJKkwN004141 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:20:46 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iIyk-00014i-RM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:20:46 -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 PAA10055; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:20:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iIyj-0006jz-00; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:20:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iIyi-0006jw-00; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:20:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iIy1-0000xt-Ow; Thu, 31 Jul 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 19iIxW-0000wq-RT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:19:30 -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 PAA10008 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:19:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iIxV-0006j6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:19:29 -0400 Received: from host217-35-105-169.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.105.169] helo=mail.neosinteractive.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iIxU-0006j3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:19:28 -0400 Received: from tthomson ([217.35.105.173] unverified) by mail.neosinteractive.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:25:41 +0100 From: "Tom Thomson" To: "Peter Kay" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data - Titan Key reduces spam attacks Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0095_01C357A1.09935EB0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jul 2003 19:25:41.0120 (UTC) FILETIME=[877C7800:01C35799] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 31 Jul 2003 20:19:25 +0100 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0095_01C357A1.09935EB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Messageeems to me that you have done some pretty ropy analysis. did you discard the obviously anomalous outlier at day 106? I did some quick analysis after discarding day 94 and day 106. Conclusion: no significant trend. There may be a slight tren for the counts to increase, but it certainly isn't something I would bet on from this data. I certainly wouldn't claim a decreasing trend. Tom -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Peter Kay Sent: 31 July 2003 19:32 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data - Titan Key reduces spam attacks I've posted an updated log file analysis of spam sent to peterk@cyber-hawaii.com which is an old email address of mine that is still in use but under the protection of The Titan Key. that log file is at: http://www.titankey.com/misc/logs/logPK.xls We're happy to report that with about 100 days of analysis, the trend of spam attacks to this email address is DOWN. To our knowledge this is the only anti-spam software that has demonstrated this capability. As we've mentioned before, our technology responds with a 550 no such user after analyzing the MAIL FROM and RCPT TO against a consent database. This has the dual benefit of saving bandwidth (email contents are never sent) and, as shown above, reducing the attacks over time. Peter ------=_NextPart_000_0095_01C357A1.09935EB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
eems=20 to me that you have done some pretty ropy analysis.
 
did=20 you discard the obviously anomalous outlier at day = 106?
 
I did=20 some quick analysis after discarding day 94 and day 106.  = Conclusion: no=20 significant trend.  There may be a slight tren for the counts to = increase,=20 but it certainly isn't something I would bet on from this data.  I=20 certainly wouldn't claim a decreasing trend.
 
Tom
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: = asrg-admin@ietf.org=20 [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Peter = Kay
Sent: 31=20 July 2003 19:32
To: asrg@ietf.org
Subject: [Asrg] = 2.a.1=20 Analysis of Actual Spam Data - Titan Key reduces spam=20 attacks

I've = posted an=20 updated log file analysis of spam sent to peterk@cyber-hawaii.com which is an old email address of mine that is still in use = but under=20 the protection of The Titan Key.
 
that = log file is=20 at: http://www.titankey.= com/misc/logs/logPK.xls
 
We're happy to=20 report that with about 100 days of analysis, the trend of spam attacks = to this=20 email address is DOWN.  To our knowledge this is the only = anti-spam=20 software that has demonstrated this capability.
 
As = we've mentioned=20 before, our technology responds with a 550 no such user after = analyzing the=20 MAIL FROM and RCPT TO against a consent database.    = This has=20 the dual benefit of saving bandwidth (email contents are never sent) = and, as=20 shown above, reducing the attacks over time.
 
Peter
------=_NextPart_000_0095_01C357A1.09935EB0-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 31 16:06:57 2003 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 QAA12382 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:06:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iJh0-0003JO-KS for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:06:30 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6VK6U8G012724 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:06:30 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iJh0-0003J9-Gr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:06:30 -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 QAA12377; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:06:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iJgx-0007GY-00; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:06:27 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iJgw-0007GV-00; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:06:26 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iJgY-0003Ff-Kc; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:06:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iJgU-0003Ew-8g for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:05:58 -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 QAA12364 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:05:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iJgS-0007GB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:05:56 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iJgR-0007Fg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:05:55 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by imail.centuryc.net (SMTPD32-8.00) id A6E3913007A; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:06:59 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:12:17 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <36e92b1e-caef-4fb6-9b8f-ce38cae79bae> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C3579F.58486764" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data - Titan Key reduces spam attacks X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data - Titan Key reduces spam attacks Thread-Index: AcNXmRYJPZ9AUjA+R+qazQucUL0k/QABQCYw From: "Peter Kay" To: "Tom Thomson" , Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 31 Jul 2003 10:07:18 -1000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3579F.58486764 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 if you discard days 94 and 106 there is still a downward trend. Now, let me be the first to raise my hand to say I'm not a statistician. So perhaps your application of "ropy" might be more accurately expressed as "layman". =20 But the numbers are there for everyone to see. And please, if there's someone here who can honestly call themselves a statistician please step forward and lend us your wisdom. =20 The trend is either up, flat, or down. According to the linear regression trendline, the trend is down. If there is a statistical definition of "significant" then of course lets apply it. But if we're going to apply it then lets also apply this trend against ANYONE elses trend that is not using Titan Key. =20 =20 And then decide if one using a Titan Key email address reduces their spam over time vs. someone that uses any other anti-spam approach. =20 Peter =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Tom Thomson [mailto:tthomson@neosinteractive.com]=20 Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 9:19 AM To: Peter Kay; asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data - Titan Key reduces spam attacks =09 =09 eems to me that you have done some pretty ropy analysis. =20 did you discard the obviously anomalous outlier at day 106? =20 I did some quick analysis after discarding day 94 and day 106. Conclusion: no significant trend. There may be a slight tren for the counts to increase, but it certainly isn't something I would bet on from this data. I certainly wouldn't claim a decreasing trend. =20 Tom =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Peter Kay Sent: 31 July 2003 19:32 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data - Titan Key reduces spam attacks =09 =09 I've posted an updated log file analysis of spam sent to peterk@cyber-hawaii.com which is an old email address of mine that is still in use but under the protection of The Titan Key.=20 =20 that log file is at: http://www.titankey.com/misc/logs/logPK.xls =20 =20 We're happy to report that with about 100 days of analysis, the trend of spam attacks to this email address is DOWN. To our knowledge this is the only anti-spam software that has demonstrated this capability.=20 =20 As we've mentioned before, our technology responds with a 550 no such user after analyzing the MAIL FROM and RCPT TO against a consent database. This has the dual benefit of saving bandwidth (email contents are never sent) and, as shown above, reducing the attacks over time. =20 Peter ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3579F.58486764 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
 
if you=20 discard days 94 and 106 there is still a downward trend. Now, let = me be the=20 first to raise my hand to say I'm not a statistician. So perhaps your=20 application of "ropy" might be more accurately expressed as = "layman". =20
But=20 the numbers are there for everyone to see. And please, if there's = someone here=20 who can honestly call themselves a statistician please step forward and = lend us=20 your wisdom.
 
The=20 trend is either up, flat, or down. According to the linear regression = trendline,=20 the trend is down. If there is a statistical = definition of=20 "significant" then of course lets apply it. But if we're = going to apply=20 it then lets also apply this trend against ANYONE elses trend that is = not using=20 Titan Key.  
 
And=20 then decide if one using a Titan Key email address reduces their spam = over time=20 vs. someone that uses any other anti-spam approach.
 
Peter
 
 
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom = Thomson=20 [mailto:tthomson@neosinteractive.com]
Sent: Thursday, July = 31, 2003=20 9:19 AM
To: Peter Kay; asrg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: = [Asrg]=20 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data - Titan Key reduces spam=20 attacks

eems=20 to me that you have done some pretty ropy = analysis.
 
did=20 you discard the obviously anomalous outlier at day = 106?
 
I=20 did some quick analysis after discarding day 94 and day 106.  = Conclusion:=20 no significant trend.  There may be a slight tren for the counts = to=20 increase, but it certainly isn't something I would bet on from this=20 data.  I certainly wouldn't claim a decreasing = trend.
 
Tom
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: = asrg-admin@ietf.org=20 [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Peter = Kay
Sent: 31=20 July 2003 19:32
To: asrg@ietf.org
Subject: = [Asrg] 2.a.1=20 Analysis of Actual Spam Data - Titan Key reduces spam=20 attacks

I've posted an=20 updated log file analysis of spam sent to peterk@cyber-hawaii.com which is an old email address of mine that is still in use = but under=20 the protection of The Titan Key.
 
that log file is=20 at: http://www.titankey.= com/misc/logs/logPK.xls
 
We're happy to=20 report that with about 100 days of analysis, the trend of spam = attacks to=20 this email address is DOWN.  To our knowledge this is the only=20 anti-spam software that has demonstrated this capability.=20
 
As = we've=20 mentioned before, our technology responds with a 550 no such user = after=20 analyzing the MAIL FROM and RCPT TO against a consent=20 database.    This has the dual benefit of saving = bandwidth=20 (email contents are never sent) and, as shown above, reducing the = attacks=20 over time.
 
Peter
=00 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3579F.58486764-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 31 16:40:54 2003 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 QAA13188 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:40:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iKDs-0004ep-7v for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:40:28 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6VKeS59017897 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:40:28 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iKDs-0004ea-1z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:40:28 -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 QAA13183; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:40:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iKDm-0007RO-00; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:40:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iKDm-0007RL-00; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:40:22 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iKDS-0004bI-2G; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:40:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iKCu-0004aT-DY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:39:28 -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 QAA13164 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:39:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iKCs-0007R5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:39:26 -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 19iKCr-0007Qn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:39:25 -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 19iKBD-0007xl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:37:43 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data - Titan Key reduces spam attacks In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:07:18 -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: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:37:43 -0400 "Peter Kay" wrote: > But the numbers are there for everyone to see. ? >> that log file is at: http://www.titankey.com/misc/logs/logPK.xls If you're going to put an analysis up on the web for other people to see, it would be preferable to put it up as a web page, or standard format, so that other people could see it. > The trend is either up, flat, or down. According to the linear > regression trendline, the trend is down. If there is a statistical > definition of "significant" then of course lets apply it. But if we're > going to apply it then lets also apply this trend against ANYONE elses > trend that is not using Titan Key. Or someone using an email address from another domain. A trend for one user is nice, but it doesn't make a convincing argument. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jul 31 16:57:47 2003 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 QAA13644 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:57:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iKUD-00058e-KD for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:57:21 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6VKvLjI019747 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:57:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iKUD-00058Q-HF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:57:21 -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 QAA13637; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:57:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iKUB-0007Xy-00; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:57:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iKUA-0007Xv-00; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:57:18 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iKTt-00055R-JI; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:57:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iKSx-00052f-Qi for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:56:03 -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 QAA13613 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:55:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iKSv-0007Xp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:56:01 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iKSu-0007Xf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:56:01 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by imail.centuryc.net (SMTPD32-8.00) id A2A22850096; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:57:06 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:02:24 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <78b31566-f31c-4abd-a9a4-fa4855f5a06b> 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] 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data - Titan Key reduces spam attacks X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data - Titan Key reduces spam attacks Thread-Index: AcNXpEm+/WtbMZYzSGm6PfjOdJkUWwAAUsqg From: "Peter Kay" To: "Alan DeKok" , 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, 31 Jul 2003 10:57:25 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Is not Microsoft Excel an acceptable "standard"? For the interchange of charted info? I can put up a CSV if you want. >=20 > A trend for one user is nice, but it doesn't make a=20 > convincing argument. >=20 I agree, more users would be helpful and we'll gather that too. Will the statistician in the room please stand up and tell us what the minimum number ( to make this a statistically convincing argument ) would be? Until then, the data presented is not an argument. It's a fact. The trend is down on this email address. What other single, normal, email address that receives similar spam volumes over a similar period of time can say the same? I'll accept "one" trend counter to this. Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@freeradius.org]=20 > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 10:38 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data -=20 > Titan Key reduces spam attacks=20 >=20 >=20 > "Peter Kay" wrote: > > But the numbers are there for everyone to see. >=20 > ? >=20 > >> that log file is at: http://www.titankey.com/misc/logs/logPK.xls >=20 > If you're going to put an analysis up on the web for other=20 > people to see, it would be preferable to put it up as a web=20 > page, or standard format, so that other people could see it. >=20 > > The trend is either up, flat, or down. According to the linear=20 > > regression trendline, the trend is down. If there is a statistical=20 > > definition of "significant" then of course lets apply it.=20 > But if we're=20 > > going to apply it then lets also apply this trend against=20 > ANYONE elses=20 > > trend that is not using Titan Key. >=20 > Or someone using an email address from another domain. >=20 > A trend for one user is nice, but it doesn't make a=20 > convincing argument. >=20 > Alan DeKok. >=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 Jul 31 16:58:43 2003 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 QAA13685 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:58:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iKV7-0005FQ-TP for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:58:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6VKwHAp020167 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:58:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iKV7-0005FC-Qa for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:58:17 -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 QAA13662; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:58:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iKV5-0007YC-00; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:58:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iKV4-0007Y9-00; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:58:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iKUr-0005CB-3T; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:58:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iKUm-0005C0-Eg for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:57:56 -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 QAA13643 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:57:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iKUf-0007Y4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:57:49 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iKUe-0007Xu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:57:48 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by imail.centuryc.net (SMTPD32-8.00) id A30E28D0096; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:58:54 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:04:12 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <8ab50c6d-1e16-4c2f-9cf4-ddc218f8e789> 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] 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data - Titan Key reduces spam attacks X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data - Titan Key reduces spam attacks Thread-Index: AcNXpEm+/WtbMZYzSGm6PfjOdJkUWwAAhAxA From: "Peter Kay" To: "Alan DeKok" , 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, 31 Jul 2003 10:59:14 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On another note, if the group sees value, I'd be happy to facilitate some additional analysis. We can start from today and measure forward for as many days as you desire. Let the group collaborate on the experiment definition/control/stats/etc and we'll do our best to set it up on our part. Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@freeradius.org]=20 > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 10:38 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data -=20 > Titan Key reduces spam attacks=20 >=20 >=20 > "Peter Kay" wrote: > > But the numbers are there for everyone to see. >=20 > ? >=20 > >> that log file is at: http://www.titankey.com/misc/logs/logPK.xls >=20 > If you're going to put an analysis up on the web for other=20 > people to see, it would be preferable to put it up as a web=20 > page, or standard format, so that other people could see it. >=20 > > The trend is either up, flat, or down. According to the linear=20 > > regression trendline, the trend is down. If there is a statistical=20 > > definition of "significant" then of course lets apply it.=20 > But if we're=20 > > going to apply it then lets also apply this trend against=20 > ANYONE elses=20 > > trend that is not using Titan Key. >=20 > Or someone using an email address from another domain. >=20 > A trend for one user is nice, but it doesn't make a=20 > convincing argument. >=20 > Alan DeKok. >=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 Jul 31 17:24:50 2003 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 RAA14443 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:24:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iKuO-0006H3-H8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:24:24 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6VLOO87024116 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:24:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iKuO-0006Gt-EQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:24:24 -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 RAA14439; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:24:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iKuM-0007iM-00; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:24:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iKuL-0007iJ-00; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:24:21 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iKu1-0006Dv-0o; Thu, 31 Jul 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 19iKtb-0006Di-8J for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:23:35 -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 RAA14427 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:23:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iKtY-0007i7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:23:32 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iKtY-0007hy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:23:32 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:22:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:09:36 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Peter Kay'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data - Titan Key reduces spam attacks 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: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:09:34 -0400 Thanks Peter. This is the appropriate attitude. He has put forth some very preliminary data. He is requesting input towards a better analysis. Those that have constructive feedback please provide it. There is no point in arguing over the format or making rude criticisms when he already stated that this is very preliminary. Ok, what else would be interesting to see? A broader set of test cases ( more addresses, different domains, ...) A control set of email addresses with different systems (no spam detection, detection with a different response such as: DSN, challenge, etc) What else? > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Kay [mailto:peter@titankey.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:59 PM > To: Alan DeKok; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data - > Titan Key reduces spam attacks > > > On another note, if the group sees value, I'd be happy to > facilitate some additional analysis. > > We can start from today and measure forward for as many days > as you desire. Let the group collaborate on the experiment > definition/control/stats/etc and we'll do our best to set it > up on our part. > > Peter > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@freeradius.org] > > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 10:38 AM > > To: asrg@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data - > > Titan Key reduces spam attacks > > > > > > "Peter Kay" wrote: > > > But the numbers are there for everyone to see. > > > > ? > > > > >> that log file is at: http://www.titankey.com/misc/logs/logPK.xls > > > > If you're going to put an analysis up on the web for other > > people to see, it would be preferable to put it up as a web > > page, or standard format, so that other people could see it. > > > > > The trend is either up, flat, or down. According to the linear > > > regression trendline, the trend is down. If there is a > statistical > > > definition of "significant" then of course lets apply it. > > But if we're > > > going to apply it then lets also apply this trend against > > ANYONE elses > > > trend that is not using Titan Key. > > > > Or someone using an email address from another domain. > > > > A trend for one user is nice, but it doesn't make a > > convincing argument. > > > > Alan DeKok. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Jul 31 17:25:44 2003 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 RAA14469 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:25:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iKvG-0006Tx-HR for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:25:19 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6VLPIAh024911 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:25:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iKvG-0006Ti-D9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:25:18 -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 RAA14463; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:25:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iKvD-0007ia-00; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:25:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iKvD-0007iX-00; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:25:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iKuz-0006NX-Oa; Thu, 31 Jul 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 19iKuu-0006NF-Nk for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:24:56 -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 RAA14459 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:24:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iKus-0007iS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:24:54 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iKur-0007iP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:24:53 -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 2595684; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:24:48 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Peter Kay" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data - Titan Key reduces spam attacks 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, 31 Jul 2003 17:21:21 -0400 At 4:37 PM -0400 7/31/03, Alan DeKok wrote: > > The trend is either up, flat, or down. According to the linear >> regression trendline, the trend is down. If there is a statistical > > definition of "significant" then of course lets apply it. But if we're It's been a long time since I took all my stats courses, but one thing I'm sure of. A sample size of one address out of several hundred million, with no control, is not significant. Set up two addresses at the same domain. Advertise them with identical exposure on the same web pages and the same newsgroups, let the spam build up to a certain level, then start bouncing one and not the other. *Then* we might have some interesting statistics. Every year I bounce twice as many messages as the year before. Is that proof that bouncing doesn't work? Nope. I need to compare that number to addresses receiving similar amounts of similar spam that don't bounce. -- 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 Jul 31 17:54:52 2003 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 RAA15026 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:54:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iLNS-0007HU-79 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:54:27 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6VLsQ2r027985 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:54:26 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iLNR-0007HI-RB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:54:25 -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 RAA15020; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:54:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iLNP-00004d-00; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:54:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iLNO-00004Y-00; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:54:22 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iLN3-0007B2-76; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:54:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iLMO-0007Am-7x for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:53:20 -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 RAA14988 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:53:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iLML-00003r-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:53:17 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iLMK-00003a-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:53:16 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by imail.centuryc.net (SMTPD32-8.00) id A00A132007E; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:54:18 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:59:35 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] 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data - Titan Key reduces spam attacks X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data - Titan Key reduces spam attacks Thread-Index: AcNXqn0VrWqvcWlnRJiqEuZTwYJnfAAA6hEg From: "Peter Kay" To: "Kee Hinckley" Cc: 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, 31 Jul 2003 11:54:37 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think that's a good approach. If I gave you 2 new email addresses, would you go through the motions below? Or, if not you, anyone else? And please, if the group thinks this is NOT relevant research activity pls speak up. Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:nazgul@somewhere.com]=20 > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 11:21 AM > To: Peter Kay > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data -=20 > Titan Key reduces spam attacks >=20 >=20 > At 4:37 PM -0400 7/31/03, Alan DeKok wrote: > > > The trend is either up, flat, or down. According to the linear > >> regression trendline, the trend is down. If there is a statistical > > > definition of "significant" then of course lets apply it. But if=20 > > we're >=20 > It's been a long time since I took all my stats courses, but one=20 > thing I'm sure of. A sample size of one address out of several=20 > hundred million, with no control, is not significant. >=20 > Set up two addresses at the same domain. Advertise them with=20 > identical exposure on the same web pages and the same newsgroups, let=20 > the spam build up to a certain level, then start bouncing one and not=20 > the other. *Then* we might have some interesting statistics. Every=20 > year I bounce twice as many messages as the year before. Is that=20 > proof that bouncing doesn't work? Nope. I need to compare that=20 > number to addresses receiving similar amounts of similar spam that=20 > don't bounce. > --=20 > Kee Hinckley > http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for=20 > your POP Account > http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology=20 > and Society >=20 > I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so=20 > unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or=20 > that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. >=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 Jul 31 22:32:14 2003 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 WAA22198 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:32:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iPhN-0008Iy-QE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:31:18 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h712VHcn031920 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:31:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iPhN-0008Il-NP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:31:17 -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 WAA22189; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:31:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iPhK-0001bk-00; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:31:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iPhJ-0001bh-00; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:31:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iPg9-0008Br-1E; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:30:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iPfQ-0008BM-3d for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:29:16 -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 WAA22163 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:29:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iPfM-0001bF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:29:12 -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 19iPfM-0001bC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:29:12 -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 19iPeU-000826-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:28:18 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data - Titan Key reduces spam attacks In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:09:34 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: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:28:17 -0400 Paul Judge wrote: > He has put forth some very preliminary data. He is requesting input towards > a better analysis. Those that have constructive feedback please provide it. "More data, please!" > Ok, what else would be interesting to see? There was some discussion on this topic a few months ago, but it got lost in the volume of list traffic. > A broader set of test cases ( more addresses, different domains, ...) > A control set of email addresses with different systems (no spam detection, > detection with a different response such as: DSN, challenge, etc) > What else? I believe that there are three orthogonal characterizations: a) time b) recipient domain or name c) anti-spam system For each combination of (time, recipient, anti-spam), there are two numbers which should be collected: a) total number of messages received b) of that, the number of messages determined to be spam To avoid political issues, I would suggest that sender-oriented measurements should be explicitely not asked for, or collected. I would also suggest that the anti-spam systems be explicitely not named, other than as a broad characterization such as "challenge-response", etc. An independent third party should collect these measurements. I believe there was a volunteer a few months back, who was waiting for consensus from the group, before he would start the actual collection of data. The data analysis should be fairly straightforward. After a cursory evaluation of the data to avoid political issues, the raw data should be made available to all. Multiple independent analyses can then be done. Other measurements which should be done are measurements of SMTP weirdness which doesn't involve message delivery. e.g. "connect, EHLO, disconnect". These behaviours are closely related to spam, but in many cases do NOT involve anti-spam systems, as no messages are delivered. I believe that the anti-spam systems can then be further sub-divided into two categories: message-based systems, and network/SMTP systems. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg